Skip to main content

Full text of "Investigation of coated sands and peat for use in golf course putting green construction"

See other formats


INVESTIGATION OF COATED SANDS AND PEAT FOR USE IN GOLF 
COURSE PUTTING GREEN CONSTRUCTION 



By 
RAYMOND HEFT SNYDER 



A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL 

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT 

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF 

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY 

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 

2003 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Jerry B. Sartain, the chairman of 
my supervisory committee, for his generous support and steady guidance throughout my 
graduate studies. I am also grateful to the other members of my supervisory committee. 
Dr. Peter Nkedi-Kizza, Dr. Willie G. Harris, and Dr. Max A. Brown, for their generous 
assistance and persistent encouragement. Finally, I am especially grateful to supervisory 
committee member Dr. John L. Cisar for devoting his time and energy to insure that I met 
my life and professional ambitions. 

Special thanks go to Karen Williams, David Rich, Norman Harrison, John 
Wissinger, Gwen Williams, Eva King, Dara Park, Gary Peterson, Nathan Mincey. 
Konstantinos Makris, Ed Hopewood J.r., and Archana Kattel for their generous efforts in 
the laboratory and field. I am especially thankful to my fellow graduate student Eric A. 
Brown for his dedicated support throughout my graduate studies. 

I am forever indebted to my parents Dr. George and Caridad Snyder and my 
brother Dr. Richard Snyder. Without their love, support, and sacrifice I would not be the 
person I am today. This dissertation stands tribute to their efforts. 



11 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS " 

LIST OF TABLES v 

ABSTRACT xii 

CHAPTER 

1 INTRODUCTION 1 

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5 

Coated Sand 5 

Peat 7 

Potassium 9 

Phosphorus 1 

Water Use Efficiency 13 

3 MATERIAL AND METHODS 15 

Glasshouse Studies 15 

Phase I 2000 15 

Phase II 2001 20 

Phase III 2002 21 

Amendment Rate Study 2002 23 

Field Studies 24 

Field Study I 2001 - 2002 24 

Field Study II 2002 28 

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 38 

Glasshouse Study Phase I 2000 38 

Glasshouse Study Phase II 2001 61 

Glasshouse Study Phase III 2002 74 



in 



Amendment Rate Study 2002 93 

Field Study I 2001 - 2002 99 

Field Study II 2002 138 

5 CONCLUSIONS 176 

APPENDIX 

A Glasshouse and Field Study Data Tables 1 80 

B Glasshouse and Field Study XRD Graphs 193 

C Field Study II Figures 197 

REFERENCES 201 

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 208 



IV 



LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

3-1. Particle size distribution of sand types used in Phase I - III, 2000-2002 31 

3-2. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during phase I 2000 32 

3-3 . Total quantity of water applied to lysimeters during water use efficiency trials 

in phase I 2000 -32 

3-4. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during maintenance period 

2000 - 2001 following phase I 2000 33 

3-5. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during phase II 2001 34 

3-6. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during maintenance period 

following phase II 2001 35 

3-7. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during phase III 2002 36 

3-8. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during artificially-coated sand 

rate study .37 

4-1. Effect of coating and peat on saturated hydraulic conductivity 52 

4-2. Effect of coating and peat on root-zone mix water retention 53 

4-3. Soil chemical properties of materials used in glasshouse study 55 

4-4. Oxalate extractable P, Al, and Fe of sands used in Phases I-III 55 

4-5. Influence of peat and coating main effects on visual rating of coverage as a 

function of time after planting phase I 2000 55 

4-6. Influence of peat and coating main effects on clipping yield of bermudagrass 

as a function of time after planting phase I 2000 56 



v 



4-7. Influence of peat and coating main effects on K leached as a function of time 

after planting, for K fertilization 0, 30, 57 days after planting phase I 2000 57 

4-8. Interaction of peat and coating main effects on K leached as a function of time 
after planting for fertilization applied 0, 30, and 57 days after planting phase I 
2000 57 

4-9. Influence of peat and coating main effects on K uptake by bermudagrass as a 

function of time after planting phase I 2000 58 

4-10. Influence of peat and coating main effects on P leached as a function of time 
after planting for fertilization applied 0, 30, 57 days after planting phase I 
2000 59 

4-11. Interaction of peat and coating main effects on P leached as a function of time 
after planting for fertilization applied 0, 30, and 57 days after planting phase I 
2000 59 

4-12. Influence of peat and coating main effects on P uptake by bermudagrass as a 

-function of time after planting phase I 2000 60 

4-13. Influence of peat and coating main effects on water use efficiency phase I 

2000 . 60 

4-14. Influence of peat and coating main effects on clipping production of 

bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase II 2001 68 

4-15. Influence of peat and coating main effects on K leached as a function of time 
after planting, for K fertilization 343 and 371 days after planting, phase II 

2001 69 

4-16. An analysis of the peat and coating interaction on K leached as a function of 

time after planting, for K fertilization 343 and 371 days after planting 2001 69 

4-17. Influence of peat and coating main effects on K uptake by bermudagrass as a 

function of time after planting phase II 2001 70 

4-18. Influence of peat and coating main effects on P leached as a function of time 
after planting for fertilization applied 343 and 371 days after planting phase II 
2001 71 



VI 



4-19. An analysis of the peat and coating interaction on P leached as a function of 
time after planting for fertilization applied 343 and 371 days after planting, 
phase II 2001 71 

4-20. Influence of peat and coating main effects on P uptake by bermudagrass as a 

function of time after planting phase II 2001 72 

4-2 1 . Influence of peat and coating main effects on the number of days until wilt 

phase II 2001 73 

4-22. Influence of coating and peat on water use efficiency phase II 2001 73 

4-23 . Influence of peat and coating main effects on clipping production of 

bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase III 2002 86 

4-24. An analysis of the peat and coating interaction on clipping production of 

bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase III 2002 86 

4-25 . Influence of peat and coating main effects on K leached as a function of time 
after planting for fertilization applied 682, 715, and 747 days after planting 
phase III 2002 87 

4-26. An analysis of the peat and coating interaction on K leached as a function of 

time after planting for fertilization applied 682, 715, and 747 days after planting 
phase III 2002 87 

4-27. Influence of peat and coating main effects on K uptake by bermudagrass as a 

function of time after planting phase III 2002 88 

4-28. Interaction of coating and peat on K uptake by bermudagrass phase III 2002 . . 88 

4-29. Influence of peat and coating main effects on P leached as a function of time 
after planting for fertilization applied 682, 715, and 747 days after planting 
phase III 2002 89 

4-30. Influence of peat and coating main effects on P uptake by bermudagrass as a 

function of time after planting phase III 2002 90 

4-3 1 . Interaction of coating and peat on P uptake by bermudagrass phase III 2002 . . 90 

4-32. Influence of peat and coating main effects on the number of days until wilting 

and water use efficiency 779 days after planting phase III 2002 91 



vn 



4-33. Effect of coating and peat on cation exchange capacity at the completion of 

glasshouse study phase III 2002 91 

4-34. Selected properties of materials at the completion of Phase III 92 

4-35. Interaction of coating and peat on selected chemical properties at the completion 
of glasshouse study phase III 2002 92 

4-36. Effect of peat and artificially-coated sand rate on various physical analyses of 

the mix 98 

4-37. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K^,), volumetric water holding capacity (0v), 
and bulk density (q> BD ) of the four root-zone media prior to construction 
field study I 114 

4-38. Selected chemical properties of root zone media used in field study I prior to 

construction 114 

4-39. Oxalate extractable P, Al, and Fe of materials used field studies 114 

4-40. Influence of root zone media on Tifdwarf coverage as a function of time after 

planting field study 1 2001 - 2002 . . . .' 115 

4-41 . Influence of root zone media on clipping production as a function of time after 

planting field study I 115 

4-42. Influence of root zone media on potassium leaching as a function of time after 

planting establishment field study I 2001 - 2002 116 

4-43. Influence of root zone media on phosphorus leaching as a function of time after 

planting establishment field study I 2001 - 2002 117 

4-44. Influence of root zone media on total phosphorus and potassium leached during 

field study I establishment 118 

4-45. Potassium and P leached during Field Study I establishment relative to total K 

and P added and soil-test K and P prior to Field Study I establishment 119 

4-46. Influence of root zone media on bermudagrass K uptake as a function of time 

after planting field study I 120 

4-47. Influence of root zone media on bermudagrass P uptake as a function of time 

after planting field study I - 120 



vin 



4-48. Potassium and P uptake during Field Study I establishment relative to total K 

and P added and soil-test K and P prior to Field Study I establishment 121 

4-49. Influence of root zone media on soil moisture content as a function of time after 
planting field study I 122 

4-50. Selected properties of root zone media upon completion of establishment field 

study I 122 

4-51 . Influence of root zone media on clipping production during the Field Study I 

maintenance period 134 

4-52. Influence of root zone media on potassium leaching as a function of time after 

planting maintenance field study I 2001 - 2002 134 

4-53. Influence of root zone media on phosphorus leaching as a function of time after 

planting maintenance field study I 2001 - 2002 134 

4-54. Potassium and P leached during Field Study I maintenance relative to total 

K and P added and soil-test K and P prior to Field Study I maintenance 135 

4-55. Influence of root zone media on bermudagrass K uptake as a function of time 

after planting field study I maintenance 136 

4-56. Influence of root zone media on bermudagrass P uptake as a function of time 

after planting field study I maintenance 136 

4-57. Influence of root zone media on volumetric soil moisture content on various 

dates after planting, field study I 136 

4-58. Selected chemical properties of root zone media upon completion of 

maintenance field study I 137 

4-59. Physical properties of root-zone media upon termination of field study I 137 

4-60. Physical properties of root-zone media prior to construction field study II ... . 151 

4-61 . Selected chemical properties of root zone media used in field study II prior to 

construction 151 

4-62. Influence of root zone media on 'Tifdwarf coverage as a function of time 

after planting field study II 2002 151 



IX 



4-63. Influence of root zone media on clipping production as a function of time after 

planting field study II 2002 152 

4-64. Influence of root zone media on potassium leaching as a function of time after 

planting field study II 2002 153 

4-65. Influence of root zone media on phosphorus leaching as a function of time after 

planting field study II 2002 153 

4-66. Potassium and P leached during Field Study II establishment relative to total 

K and P added and soil-test K and P prior to Field Study II establishment 154 

4-67. Influence of root zone media on potassium uptake as a function of time after 

planting field study II 2002 155 

4-68. Influence of root zone media on phosphorus uptake as a function of time after 

planting field study II 2002 155 

4-69. Potassium and P uptake during Field Study II establishment relative to total 

K and P added and soil-test K and P prior to Field Study II establishment 156 

4-70. Influence of root zone media on soil moisture content as a function of time after 
planting field study II 157 

4-7 1 . Selected chemical properties of root zone media upon completion of field 

study II establishment 2002 157 

4-72. Influence of root zone media on clipping production as a function of time after 

planting field study II 2002 maintenance - - 168 

4-73. Influence of root zone media on potassium leaching as a function of time after 

planting field study II 2002 maintenance 169 

4-74. Influence of root zone media on phosphorus leaching as a function of time after 

planting field study II 2002 maintenance 169 

4-75. Potassium and P leached during Field Study II maintenance relative to total 

K and P added and soil-test K and P prior to Field Study II maintenance 1 70 

4-76. Influence of root zone media on K uptake as a function of time after planting 

field study II 2002 maintenance 171 



4-77. Influence of root zone media on P uptake as a function of time after planting 

field study II 2002 maintenance 171 

4-78. Influence of root zone media on total K and P uptake upon completion of 

field study II 2002 maintenance 180 DAP 172 

4-79. Potassium and P uptake during Field Study II maintenance relative to total 

K and P added and soil-test K and P prior to Field Study II maintenance 172 

4-80. Influence of root zone media on soil moisture content as a function of time after 
planting field study II 173 

4-8 1 . Selected properties of root zone media used in field study II upon completion 

December 2002 174 

4-82. Physical properties of root-zone media in undisturbed cores upon completion 

of field study II 174 

4-83 . Influence of root zone media on Rb leaching as a function of time after 

application field study II 2002 175 

4-84. Influence of root zone materials on extractable soil Rb 175 



XI 



Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School 

of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the 

Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 

INVESTIGATION OF COATED SANDS FOR USE IN GOLF 
COURSE PUTTING GREEN CONSTRUCTION 

By 

Raymond Heft Snyder 

August 2003 

Chairman: Jerry B. Sartain 

Major Department: Soil and Water Science 

Sand is used for putting green root zones because it permits rapid drainage, good 

aeration, and resists compaction. However, sand generally has low cation, anion, and 

moisture retention. Laboratory, glasshouse, and field studies were conducted to 

determine whether coated sands and peat would improve the poor physical and chemical 

properties associated with sand-based putting greens and improve bermudagrass 

(Cynodon dactylon L. x C. transvaalensis Burtt Davy) growth and quality. Treatments 

included uncoated sand, naturally-coated sand collected from central Florida, and 

artificially-coated sand (resin/clay), all with and without added sphagnum peat (150 ml 

peat L"' sand). While sand type and peat did not influence saturated hydraulic 

conductivity, peat increased moisture retention, and at low soil moisture potentials 

artificially-coated sand had a greater water content than uncoated and naturally -coated 

xii 



sand. In addition, coating and peat increased clipping production, water use efficiency, 
and potassium (K) uptake. Furthermore, naturally- and artificially-coated sand improved 
K. retention. While naturally-coated sand retained more phosphorus (P) than uncoated and 
artificially-coated sand, greater P uptake was observed in bermudagrass grown only in 
artificially-coated sand. In a second glasshouse study it was shown that the maximum 
effect of many parameters was obtained in mixes containing < 33% artificially-coated 
sand. Using information obtained from the glasshouse studies to design treatments, two 
studies were conducted to validate glasshouse findings. Treatments used in the field were 
uncoated sand; uncoated sand with peat (100 ml peat L" 1 sand); naturally-coated sand with 
peat; and artificially-coated sand/uncoated sand mix (25%/75%) with peat. In both 
studies, bermudagrass coverage was fastest for artificially-coated sand + peat and slowest 
for uncoated sand without peat. Artificially-coated and the naturally-coated sand, both 
with peat, usually contained higher levels of moisture. Greater quantities of P and K 
uptake were generally observed in the artificially-coated sand root zone. These studies 
suggest that while the main benefit of peat was increased moisture retention, coated sands 
can provide both this benefit and varying degrees of P and K retention and uptake without 
decreasing percolation rate. 



Xlll 



CHAPTER 1 
INTRODUCTION 

The primary and most influential component of a United States Golf Association 
{USGA) constructed green is the root-zone mixture. USGA root-zones mixes are 
composed primarily of medium-coarse sized sand. The use of sand allows for rapid 
drainage, good aeration, and resistance to compaction (USGA Green Section Staff, 1993). 
Most sands, however, have low cation and anion exchange capacity (CEC/AEC), and low 
water holding capacities. Frequent fertilization and irrigation are required to maintain 
adequate fertility and moisture levels in the root-zone mix (Li et al., 2000). 

In order to improve nutrient and moisture retention in the root-zone mix, various 
organic and inorganic amendments have been used with some success (Carrow, 1993). 
Peat moss is an organic amendment commonly mixed with sand in an attempt to improve 
moisture retention (Beard, 1982). Porous ceramics, diatomaceous earths, and zeolites are 
examples of inorganic amendments marketed for use in USGA putting greens (Bigelow et 
al., 2000). These organic and inorganic amendments, however, may decompose or lose 
their structural integrity, resulting in a gradual change in chemical and physical properties 
associated with poor putting green performance and turfgrass quality. Because the long 
term stability and effectiveness of inorganic amendments are uncertain, peat moss is the 
only amendment recommended for use in greens constructed by the USGA (USGA Green 
Section Staff, 1993). 

1 



2 
Since quartz sand is the primary component of the root-zone mixture, a logical 
approach to improving putting green performance may be to explore the use of different 
sand types in USGA putting green construction. In Florida, naturally occurring sands 
include uncoated or "clean" sand as well as coated (or slightly coated) sand. Coated 
sands commonly have a reddish-brown hue, due to oxidized Fe and Al in the clay-sized 
fraction of the coatings. Uncoated sands are light gray or colorless and do not have clay- 
sized coatings (Harris et al., 1996). Uncoated sands are almost inert, exhibiting few if 
any reactive chemical properties. Coated sands may, however, improve cation, anion, and 
water retention due to the presence of Fe/Al oxides and kaolinitic clay (1:1 lattice 
structure) on the sand grain surfaces. The presence of iron oxides appears to "cement" 
aluminosilicate clays, such as kaolinite, as coatings on sand grain surfaces (Ryan and 
Gschwend, 1992). 

Unfortunately, coated sands are often found in a particle-size range too fine for 
use in USGA putting greens and are commonly too remotely located to transport 
economically. Therefore, in most cases, the less chemically active uncoated sands are 
used in the construction of USGA greens. The limited availability and use of naturally- 
coated sands has resulted in the development of an artificially-coated sand that is readily 
available and of acceptable particle size distribution. 

An artificially-coated sand was developed to increase ion exchange and moisture 
retention without adversely impacting putting green performance. Components of the 
artificially-coated sand include medium to coarse uncoated sand, 2:1 lattice structure clay 
(emathlite), and a polyester resin which cements the clay to the uncoated sand. An 



3 
artificially-coated sand may permit the use of a coated sand type when a naturally-coated 
sand with proper particle sizes is unavailable. 

Previous research on improving physical and chemical properties of sand based 
putting greens has focused primarily on the use of inorganic amendments. Less research 
has focused on the potential benefits that may exist when alternative sand types are used 
in the construction of sand-based putting greens. Brown et al. (2000) reported increased 
P uptake and reduced P leaching from bermudagrass established and maintained in 
lysimeters constructed according to USGA specifications using a naturally-coated sand. 
The impact of coated sands on physical properties and the movement of other highly 
mobile plant essential nutrients, including a comparison between naturally- and 
artificially-coated sands, has yet to be determined. Therefore, a series of experiments was 
developed to investigate potential benefits associated with coated sands. 

The short-term objectives of the glasshouse study were to determine the impact of 
uncoated and naturally- and artificially-coated sand and peat during establishment on 1) 
saturated hydraulic conductivity (K sat ); 2) water use efficiency (WUE); 3) bermudagrass 
coverage; 4) clipping yield; and 5) moisture and nutrient retention and uptake by 
'Tifdwarf bermudagrass. 

The long-term objectives of the glasshouse study were to determine the impact of 
uncoated and naturally- and artificially-coated sand and peat on 1) WUE; 2) clipping 
yield; 3) number of days until wilt; and 4) nutrient retention and uptake by 'Tifdwarf 
bermudagrass in consecutive years following establishment. 



The objective of the artificially-coated sand rate glasshouse studies was to 
determine the optimum rate at which artificially-coated sand should be incorporated in a 
USGA root-zone in order to attain desired effects. 

The best performing treatments from the glasshouse studies were chosen for use 
in the field. The objectives of the field study were to determine the impact of uncoated 
and naturally- and artificially-coated sand during establishment and maintenance 
conditions on 1) K^,; 2) moisture retention; 3) bermudagrass coverage; 4) clipping yield; 
and 5) P and K retention and uptake by 'Tifdwarf bermudagrass. 



CHAPTER 2 
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 

Coated Sand 

In Florida, naturally occurring sands include uncoated sand as well as coated (or 
slightly coated) sand (Harris et al., 1996). Coated sands generally have a reddish-brown 
hue, due to oxidized Fe and Al in the clay-sized fraction of the coatings. Uncoated sands 
are light gray or colorless and do not have clay-sized coatings. Uncoated sands are 
almost inert, exhibiting few if any reactive chemical properties. In contrast, coated sands 
may, improve cation (K), anion (P), and water retention due to the presence of Fe/Al 
oxides and kaolinitic clay (1:1 lattice structure) on the sand grain surfaces. Goethite (iron 
oxide) appears to "cement" aluminosilicate clays, such as kaolinite, as coatings on sand 
grain surfaces (Ryan and Gschwend, 1992). 

Little research related to coated sand use in turfgrass systems has been conducted. 
Furthermore, coated sand research has been limited to short-term glasshouse studies. 
Brown et al. (2000) conducted a glasshouse lysimeter study in order to investigate the 
influence of uncoated sand, coated sand, and peat on P retention, P uptake, and P leaching 
using three P sources under two growing conditions (grow-in and established turf). 
During grow-in, coated sand increased turfgrass establishment rate, clipping yield. P 
uptake, and soil P. In addition, peat decreased grow-in time for both uncoated sand and 
coated sand. In the established study peat increased clipping yield from uncoated and 



coated sands, and coated sand had greater extractable soil P than uncoated sand. In the 
established study, however, there was no difference in P uptake. It should be noted that 
these two studies were not conducted consecutively in the same set of lysimeters; thus the 
potential for coated sand and peat to function in the same capacity with time remains 
inconclusive. 

Additional work related to coated sands has predominately focused on 
environmental issues such as heavy metals, hydrophobic organic compounds (HOCs), and 
clay colloid release. While not conducted on turfgrass, many of the soil chemistry topics 
addressed, such as chemisorption and CEC, are applicable to turfgrass systems. 

Stahl and James (1991) conducted laboratory studies to determine the effect of pH 
on CEC of goethite and hematite coated sand and the amount and exchangeability of Zn 
retained on goethite and hematite precipitated as coatings on a sand matrix. The systems 
were conducted as model systems to simulate Fe-oxide coatings in a soil. It was 
determined that at pH < 4, the CEC of hematite coated sand was less than that of 
uncoated sand while, for goethite coated sand, the CEC was greater than for uncoated 
sand. The CEC of goethite coated sand reached a maximum of 0.14 cmol c kg' 1 at pH 5.0 
with hematite coated sand reaching a maximum of 0. 1 7 cmol c kg" 1 at pH 7.4. The CEC 
for uncoated sand was 0.044 + 0.012 cmol c kg" 1 . Both goethite and hematite coatings 
increased sorption of Zn in nonexchangeable forms at pHs > 6. The authors concluded 
that the reductive dissolution of Fe oxides could make nonexchangeable Zn plant 
available. 



7 
Ryan and Gschwend (1994) compared the influence of dissolution of iron oxides 
and alteration of electrostatic interactions on the mobilization of colloids in a clay- and 
iron oxide-coated sand because of concern over cases of colloid-facilitated transport of 
low solubility contaminants. Clay colloid release and iron oxyhydroxide dissolution were 
measured under conditions in which the sediment was flushed with solutions of varying 
ionic strength, pH, and reductant and surfactant concentrations. Groundwater produced a 
relatively high mean clay release rate, but Fe release rate was low. In addition, clay 
release rates were positively correlated with the detachment energy and unrelated to Fe 
release rates. Finally, a decrease in ionic strength did not increase clay release rate. 

Holmen and Gschwend (1997) investigated the sorption rates of hydrophobic 
organic compounds in iron oxide- and aluminosilicate clay-coated aquifer sands. They 
suggested that OM-rich iron oxyhydroxide and aluminosilicate clay coatings, located at 
the exterior of sand grains, are the principal HOC sorption media. It was observed, 
however, in column studies that such OM is not accessible to HOCs diffusing into the 
intact sand coatings. Furthermore, they suggest that tumbling action, such as those 
encountered in batch test procedures, may serve to detach sand grain coatings. 

Peat 
Peat is a term used to describe partially decomposed plant material that forms in 
bogs under cool and moist conditions. Peat is the most popular organic amendment used 
to improve characteristics of putting green soil mixes (McCarty, 2001). Commercial 
peats vary considerably in pH, and water and organic matter contents because they are 
derived from different plant materials, decomposing under different environmental 



8 
conditions, (Dyal, 1960; Bethke 1988). Peats are broadly classified into moss peat, reed- 
sedge peat, and peat humus (Lucas et al., 1965). Peats used to modify sands should be 
high in organic content and low in ash content. Some benefits of peat include increased 
moisture holding capacity, source of slow-release plant nutrients, and increased 
availability of certain elements such as Fe and N (Lucas et al. 1965). 

Peats are normally used at rates of 5 to 20% by volume in golf course greens mix. 
Brown and Duble (1975) reported that an optimum mixture contained 85% sand, 5% clay, 
and 10% moss peat, on a volume basis. Taylor and Blake (1979) reported that at least 
87% sand by weight was required to provide effective modification for turfgrass growth 
while also assuring an infiltration rate of at least 2.3 cm h" 1 . Zimmerman (1969), 
investigating various coarse sand-soil-peat mixtures, determined that increasing peat from 
10 to 20% by volume at the expense of soil decreased pH, and increased CEC and N. 
Horn (1970) reported that peat increased capillary porosity and available water, but 
speculated that most peat is subject to oxidation within one year. 

Peat can have an influential role during establishment. Nus et al. (1987) observed 
an enhancement in 'Pencross' creeping bentgrass establishment by peat because of 
increased moisture retention. Waltz and McCarty (2000) also observed that bentgrass 
established three months sooner in sand containing 1 5% by volume sphagnum peat 
relative to straight sand and mixes containing 1 5% inorganic soil amendments. Bigelow 
et al. (2000) attributed an increase in bentgrass establishment in medium sand amended 
with 10% sphagnum peat by volume to greater water retention and to a lesser degree 
increased nutrient retention relative to unamended sand. 



Potassium 

Potassium (K) is second to nitrogen (N) in the amounts accumulated by turfgrass 
plants, excluding C, H, and O. Potassium has been determined to be an essential element 
in numerous plant functions, such as photosynthesis, carbohydrate and protein formation, 
water relationships, and enzymatic activity (McCarty, 2001). Jones (1980) suggested a 
sufficiency range of 10.0 to 25.0 g kg" 1 for turfgrass. Bermudagrass tissue K typically 
ranges from 10 to 30 g kg" 1 (Sartain,1999). A growth response to K application can be 
obtained when tissue K level is below 13 g kg" 1 (Snyder and Cisar, 2000). Sartain (2002) 
reported 30 mg K kg" 1 Mehlich I extractable soil K may be adequate for optimum growth. 

Although K is found in high concentrations in turfgrass, its importance during 
establishment appears minimal, especially for cool-season grasses. However, warm- 
season turfgrasses that are vegetatively propagated from plant material with little root 
structure may benefit during the early stages of establishment from elevated soil K levels 
because of direct K contact and less diffusion and mass flow distance. Juska (1959) 
found a positive response to K applications during the establishment of 'Meyer' 
zoysiagrass for top-growth, stolon growth, and for coverage rate. Zoysia, however, when 
established from plugs, which have a greater intact root structure than sprigs, benefitted 
little when K was applied to soil having moderate initial soil K levels (Fry and 
Dernoeden, 1987). 

Many beneficial effects of K applied to bermudagrass during routine maintenance 
have been reported. Kiesling (1980) found that the initiation of new bermudagrass 
rhizomes and longevity of existing rhizomes on a low K soil were directly related to 



10 
increasing K applications. Leaf spot disease of bermudagrass has been shown to be much 
more severe where soil K levels have been kept low (Evans et al., 1964; Juska and 
Murray, 1974). Reduced dollar spot of bermudagrass by K applications was found by 
both Horn (1970) and Juska and Murray (1974). Increased K levels have been reported to 
decrease winter injury or increase winter hardiness (Adams and Twersky, 1960; 
Alexander and Gilbert, 1963; Gilbert and Davis, 1971; Juska and Murray, 1974). 

The effects of K on visual turf quality and color appear less evident than on 
growth, cold resistance, and disease. Johnson et al. (1987) did not find any improvement 
of 'Tifway' bermudagrass within the soil K concentration range of 70 to 1 36 kg of K ha 1 . 
Barrios and Jones (1980) also found no effect of K applications on the visual quality of 
bermudagrass. Sturkie and Rouse (1967) observed that both zoysia and bermudagrass 
have exhibited poorer color and early spring quality when K was not applied. While 
severe K deficiencies are observed in the absence of K fertilization, 'Tifgreen' 
bermudagrass appearance, growth, resistance to bermudagrass decline, and root weight 
were not improved by increasing K/N fertilization beyond a ratio of 0.5 to 1 (Snyder and 
Cisar. 2000). In addition, Sartain (2002) reported that K rates in excess of 0.50 to 0.67 
times that of N application rates did not result in increased K uptake, shoot and root 
growth or visual quality of 'Tifway' bermudagrass. 

Potassium is subject to leaching in many soils (Beard, 1982). Sartain (1996) 
reported that the mobility of K in USGA root-zone mixes may differ according to the 
nature of the anion associated with the K. Chung et al. (1999) in a simulated USGA root- 
zone mix reported a loss of 16% of applied K from 0-20-20, and between 8 and 1 1% from 



11 

applied monopotassium phosphate, potassium chloride, and potassium nitrate sources. In 
addition, Chung et al. (1999) observed that the anion charge associated with the K ion did 
not influence K leaching from selected K sources due to the limited quantity of anion 
exchange capacity associated with USGA root-zone mixes. 

The CEC of a soil influences the ability of a soil to retain nutrient cations (Brady 
and Weil 1996). Petri and Petrovic (2001) reported that increasing the CEC level from 
less than 1 cmol kg" 1 to 6 cmol kg' 1 decreased K leaching exponentially. Furthermore, 
they did not observe additional K retention above 6 cmol kg' 1 . 

Phosphorus 

In turfgrass, phosphorus is required in smaller amounts than N or K. 
Nevertheless, P is a vital component of cellular compounds. Phosphorus is required for 
photosynthesis, the interconversion of carbohydrates, fat metabolism, nutrient uptake, and 
oxidation reactions (Waddington et al., 1992). Jones (1980) suggests a sufficiency range 
of 3.0 - 5.5 g kg' 1 for turfgrasses. For bermudagrass greens 1.5 to 2.4 g kg' 1 tissue P is 
considered low with a range of 2.5 to 6.0 g kg" 1 tissue P sufficient (Jones et al. 1991). 
Acceptable soil P as determined by Mehlich-I extractant ranges from 5-30 ppm 
(McCarty, 2001). Phosphorus is most readily available to plants in the soil pH range of 
5.5 to 6.5 (Brady and Weil, 1996). 

Phosphorus plays an important role in the vegetative establishment of warm- 
season grasses. Wood and Duble (1976) found that P affected St. Augustinegrass growth 
most during the first eight weeks of establishment. At eight weeks, coverage on plots 
receiving 



12 
little or no P averaged <50%, whereas plots receiving P averaged 73% coverage. 

Zoysiagrass establishment was also enhanced by P additions to a soil extremely low in P 

(Juska 1959). Phosphorus additions increased zoysia top, root, and stolon growth. 

Responses to P additions on established turf are less consistent than N and K. In 
general, warm-season turfgrasses do not show dramatic growth responses to applied P 
(Pritchett and Horn, 1966). Sturkie and Rouse (1967) reported that zoysia and 
bermudagrass became lighter green as P rates increased. In addition, early season 
chlorosis of zoysia was caused by high rates of P. Cold tolerance of bermudagrass was 
increased by P additions as long as N and K are adequate (Gilbert and Davis, 1971). 
Pritchett and Horn (1966) reported that parasitic nematode infestations of turfgrass roots 
decreased as P additions increased, even with adequate initial soil P levels. 

Phosphorus does not leach readily due to its low solubility in the soil solution of 
coated soils. Soil solution P is generally very low ranging from 0.001 mg P L' 1 in very 
infertile soils to about 1.0 mg P L" 1 in heavily fertilized soils (Brady and Weil, 1996). 
While losses of P in surface flow and runoff tend to be quite low, transport of P to 
groundwater is possible if excessive loading of P is applied to sandy soils with limited P 
sorption (Koehler et al., 1982; Peaslee and Phillips, 1981; Chung et al., 1999; Brown et 
al., 2000). 

Because P leaching from golf courses could potentially contaminate ground and 
surface waters, several studies have explored P leaching potential under actual and 
simulated golf course conditions. Petrovic (1995) observed P concentrations in leachate 
from simulated fairways rarely exceeding analytical detection limits of 0.05 mg L" 1 . 



13 
Using undisturbed soil columns simulating golf course fairway conditions, Starrett and 
Christians (1995) reported that irrigation rate affects P transport. Smith and Shuman 
(1998) observed P in leachate 30 to 50 days following application of soluble P in 
lysimeters located in functional USGA putting greens. Shuman (2001), reporting data 
from the same lysimeters, observed that high P concentrations in the leachate indicated 
that P leaches readily with 27% of the applied P accounted for in the leachate. Wong et 
al. (1998) reported that P concentrations in leachate of greens exceeded the surface water 
quality standard of 0.3 mg P L" 1 using lysimeters reconstituted with soil collected from a 
golf course putting greens in Hong Kong. Furthermore, 37% of the applied P was 
accounted for in the leachate. 

Water Use Efficiency 

Water use efficiency (WUE) is defined as the quantity of dry matter produced per 
amount of water lost via evapotranspiration (g dry matter mL ET 1 ). Turf water use rate 
may be influenced by species plant physiology, soil moisture availability, the degree of 
water demand, soil fertility, and cultural management practices. Estimating ET by 
measuring gravimetric weight changes and comparing it to tissue yield can be used to 
determine WUE. 

The addition of amendments to sand based root zones may increase WUE by 
improving water retention and fertility. Huang and Petrovic (1991) reported increased 
WUE with the addition of clinoptilolite zeolite to sand. In addition, Comer (1999) 
observed improved WUE in zeolite-amended soils. Organic matter amendment, 
however, reduced WUE. 



14 
Stout and Schnabel (1997) investigated the effect of soil drainage and N 
fertilization on WUE of perennial ryegrass. They observed that denitrification caused by 
poor soil drainage conditions resulted in a 26% reduction in WUE during spring and a 
20% reduction during a summer growth period. Sills and Carrow (1983) reported that 
perennial ryegrass WUE increased when water soluble N was applied and as N rate 
increased. 



CHAPTER 3 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Glasshouse Studies 

Glasshouse studies were utilized as both introductory exploratory studies and 
multi-year evaluations of root zone performance. The initial glasshouse study consisted 
of three phases, over a period of three years. The three phases consisted of Phase I (year 
one, 2000), an establishment period, Phase II (year two, 2001), a maintenance period, and 
Phase III (year three, 2002), a second maintenance period. A second glasshouse study, an 
artificially-coated sand rate study, was conducted in the spring of 2002 using selected 
rates of artificially -coated sand with and without sphagnum peat. 
Phase I Year 2000 

Twenty-four lysimeters were constructed at the Univ. of Florida's Envirotron 
Research Facility in Gainesville, FL, in the spring of 2000. The 45-cm tall by 15-cm in 
diameter cylindrical lysimeters consisted of a 30-cm root-zone placed over 1 5-cm of pea 
gravel. An intermediate "choker" layer was not used between the sand and gravel. A 
factorial design was used, with all combinations of two rates of sphagnum peat (0, 150 ml 
peat L' 1 sand) and three types of coating (uncoated; naturally-coated; and artificially- 
coated sands). The uncoated sand was obtained from the Davenport, FL, mine of 
Standard Sand and Silica Co.; the coated sand was obtained from pit #5 in Orange county, 



15 



16 
FL, Bishop and Buttrey, Inc., Orlando, FL; and the artificially coated was made by 
coating the uncoated sand listed above witfi a calcium-saturated montmorillonite clay 
(emathlite), (MFM Corp., Lowell, FL) at the rate of 40g clay kg" 1 using a chemically-set 
epoxy resin (Bondo Marhyde Corp., Atlanta, GA) at 20 g kg" 1 as the binder. The particle 
size range of the uncoated sand which was not artificially-coated was adjusted to 
approximately that of the finer textured naturally coated sand by sieving (Table 3-1). The 
artificially coated sand, however, was made from the unsieved, uncoated sand (Table 3- 
1). Treatments were replicated four times in a randomized complete block design 
resulting in 24 lysimeters as experimental units, each measuring 1 77 cm 2 in surface area. 
In addition to the experimental units, an extra set of "dummy lysimeters" (one per 
treatment) was constructed in the same manner as the experimental units for purposes of 
gathering physical property data without destroying the experimental units. The "dummy 
lysimeters" were not sprigged. 
Establishment Phase 

Each lysimeter was sprigged with 'Tifdwarf bermudagrass at 5 g moist sprigs 
lysimeter" 1 . Fertilizer was added at sprigging to supply 5 g N m" 2 , 5 g P m" 2 , and 10 g K 
m' 2 . Additional N, P, and K were applied during the establishment phase of the study 
(Table 3-2). Ammonium sulfate, NH 4 H,P0 4 (MAP) , and KC1 were used as the nutrient 
sources. 

Bermudagrass coverage rate was evaluated 21, 29, 36, and 43 days after planting 
(DAP). Coverage scores (0 - 100%) were taken for each experimental unit based on 
visual observations. 



17 
Physical and chemical characterization. Prior to establishment, two undisturbed 
cores in brass rings were taken from each treatment using a double-cylinder hammer 
driven core sampler from one set of "dummy lysimeters" at depths to 15 cm and 15 to 
30 cm. A total of 12, 3.0 x 5.56-cm cores were taken. Cores were stored in plastic bags 
and refrigerated until moisture release curves and saturated hydraulic conductivity (K^,) 
were determined. The brass ring enclosed cores were installed in model 1400 Tempe cells 
(Soil Moisture Equipment, Santa Barbara, CA), saturated, and pressure was applied at 
increasing rates (0.3 - 1500 -kPa). Permanent wilting point was determined using 1500 - 
kPa chambers. K^, was determined by ponding 6 cm of water on saturated soil cores and 
recording percolate collected with time. For conducting statistical analysis, the two 
depths were treated as replications. 

Samples of each sand type were collected at construction to determine base-line 
soil chemical properties. Samples were analyzed for pH (1 soil:2 water), water- 
extractable P, and acetic acid-extractable P, K, Ca, and Mg by the University of Florida's 
IF AS Everglades REC soil testing laboratory, Belle Glade, Florida (Sanchez, 1990). In 
addition, oxalate extractable P, Fe, and Al was determined by ICAP after extraction at a 
1:60 solid:solution ratio, following the procedures of McKeague et al. (1971). Detection 
limit for ICAP for P, Fe, and Al was 0.3, 0.03, and 0.02 mg kg" 1 , respectively. 

Water use efficiency. Determination of water use efficiency represents one 
measure of a plant's ability to obtain water from a particular growth media. Three water 
use efficiency trials were conducted following complete establishment to determine the 
degree to which the root zone mixes were able to provide water for clipping production. 



18 
Water use efficiency of turfgrass in treated soils was determined following the 
completion of the nutrient mobility study described below at week 1 1 . Lysimeters were 
brought to pot water-holding capacity and weighed at the start of each WUE cycle. 
During each cycle the same quantity of water was added every 3 d to each lysimeter 
which maintained a moisture content 98% of that of field capacity. The quantity of water 
added was recorded and used as an estimation of the water used (Table 3-3). In addition, 
at the end of each cycle (varying from 2-4 weeks), lysimeters were weighed. This final 
weight was subtracted from the pot capacity weight, providing another estimate of water 
used which was recorded and added to the quantity of water applied during the cycle. 
Water use efficiency was calculated by dividing clipping yield produced during the cycle 
by the quantity of water used during the cycle. 

Nutrient mobility. An evaluation of the mobility of P and K in selected treatments 
was initiated at sprigging. Lysimeters were maintained near field capacity using a timed 
overhead, mist irrigation system. Leaching was induced by applying a half pore volume 
(~ 500 ml H 2 lysimeter" 1 ) of deionized water. Lysimeters were allowed to drain for 24 
hr prior to leachate collection. The first leachate event occurred one wk following N, P, 
and K fertilization. Phosphorus and K were applied at 5 g P and 10 g K m" 2 month' 1 one 
wk prior to the first leachate event. Lysimeters were leached weekly for 10 wk., with 
only two random exceptions (wk 7 and 9). Leachate volume was recorded and 20 ml was 
decanted into scintillation vials and refrigerated until analysis. Leachates were analyzed 
for P and K using phosphomolybdate color-detection spectrophotometry for P and atomic 
adsorption spectrophotometry for K. 



19 
Plant tissue. Bermudagrass clipping were harvested 29, 43, 58, and 71 days after 
planting (DAP), i.e., bi-weekly. Mowing height was 20 mm and clippings were removed 
using stainless-steel scissors. The harvested leaf blade tissue was dried at 70° C for 48 h, 
weighed, and ground to < 2 mm. Total clipping production was determined as the 
summation of dried verdure harvest weights. For chemical analysis, 0.5 g of tissue were 
ashed at 450° C for 5 h. The ash was wetted with 1 ml of HN0 3 dried on a hot plate and 
reheated at 450° C for 2 h. Subsequently, the ash was dissolved in 0.1 M HC1 and 
brought to 50 ml volume, and analyzed for P and K using phosphomolybdate color- 
detection spectrophotometry for P and atomic adsorption spectrophotometry for K. 
Uptake of P and K was calculated as the product of tissue concentration and the harvest 
weight. 
Maintenance Period. 

A maintenance period, during which data were not collected, began following 
completion of the water use efficiency study in order to age the treatments to determine 
the influence of time on treatment response. This period began onl3 October 2000 (142 
DAP) and ended on 1 May 2001 (342 DAP). During this period, N was applied biweekly 
with both P and K applications occurring monthly (Table 3-4). Ammonium sulfate, 
NH 4 H,P0 4 (MAP) , and KC1 were the fertilizer sources used to supply each lysimeter 
with N. P, and K. Lysimeters were maintained near field-capacity using a mist irrigation 
system, and leached monthly by applying a half pore volume (~ 500 ml H 2 lysimeter" 1 ) 
of deionized water to reduce potential salt build-up. Bermudagrass verdure was harvested 
weekly at a height of approximately 20 mm using stainless-steel scissors and discarded. 



20 
Phase II Year 2001 

Nutrient mobility. A second evaluation of the mobility of P and K in selected 
treatments was initiated 342 DAP. Lysimeters were maintained near field capacity. 
Leaching was induced by applying a half pore volume Or 500 ml H 2 lysimeter" 1 ) of 
deionized water. Lysimeters were allowed to drain for 24 hr prior to leachate collection. 
Nitrogen, P, and K fertilization was applied 343 and 371 DAP (Table 3-5). The first 
leachate event occurred one week following N, P, and K fertilization. Lysimeters were 
leached 349, 356, 363, 371, 375, 381, 397, and 405 DAP. Leachate volume was recorded 
and 20 ml was decanted into scintillation vials and refrigerated until analysis. Leachates 
were analyzed using the same methods described for the Establishment Phase. 

Plant tissue. Bermudagrass clippings were harvested bi-weekly 355, 370, 381, 
and 397 DAP at a height of approximately 20 mm using stainless-steel scissors. The 
harvested tissue was dried at 70° C for 48 h, weighed, and ground to < 2 mm. Total 
clipping production was determined as the summation of dried clipping harvest weights. 
The tissue was analyzed for P and K using the same methods described for the 
Establishment Phase. Uptake of P and K were calculated as the product of tissue 
concentration and the harvest weight. 

Moisture stress and water use efficiency. A study to determine the number of 
days between irrigation and the number of days until wilting (ndw) was conducted from 
16 July 2001 to 9 August 2001. On 16 July 2001 (419 DAP) lysimeters were brought to 
field capacity and application of irrigation water ceased. Clippings were harvested 
weekly in 



21 
which exhibited faster growth characteristics. N was applied, using only 20 mL of H,0 on 
16 July 2001 supplementing a previous application of N, P, and K which occurred 2 wk 
earlier. Following visual determination of wilt, the date of wilt incidence and lysimeter 
mass were recorded. Harvested clippings along with terminal lysimeter mass were used 
to determine water use efficiency. 

Maintenance Period. 

A maintenance period, during which data were not collected, began following 
completion of the moisture stress study. This period began onl3 August 2001 (447 DAP) 
and ended on 5 April 2002 (682 DAP). During this period N, P, and K applications 
occurred monthly (Table 3-6). 
Phase HI Year 2002 

Nutrient mobility. A third evaluation of the mobility of P and K in selected 
treatments was initiated 682 DAP. Lysimeters were maintained near field capacity. 
Leaching was induced by applying a half pore volume (r 500 ml H 2 lysimeter"') of 
deionized water. Lysimeters were allowed to drain for 24 hr prior to leachate collection. 
Nitrogen, P, and K fertilization occurred 682, 715, and 747 DAP (Table 3-7). The first 
leachate event was imposed ten days following N, P, and K fertilization. Lysimeters were 
leached 692, 699, 704, 714, 718, 727, 739, and 761 DAP. Leachate volume was recorded 
and 20 ml was decanted into scintillation vials and refrigerated until analysis. As was 
done in the first leachate study, leachates were analyzed for P and K using 
phosphomolybdate color-detection spectrophotometry for P and A. A. for K. 



22 

Plant tissue. Bermudagrass verdure was harvested bi-weekly 699, 715, 729, and 
746 DAP at a height of approximately 20 mm using stainless-steel scissors. The harvested 
tissue was dried at 70° C for 48 h, weighed, and ground to < 2 mm. Total clipping 
production was determined as the summation of dried clipping harvest weights. The 
tissue was analyzed for P and K using the same methods described for Phase I and II. 

Moisture stress and water use efficiency. A second study to determine the number 
of days between irrigation and the appearance of leaf wilting (ndw) was conducted from 
12 July 2002 to 8 August 2002. On 1 1 July 2002 (779 DAP) lysimeters were brought to 
field capacity and application of irrigation water ceased. N was applied, using only 20 ml 
of H 2 on 1 1 July 2001 supplementing a previous application of N which occurred 2 wk 
earlier. Following visual determination of wilt, the date of wilt incidence and lysimeter 
mass were recorded. Harvested clippings along with terminal lysimeter mass were used 
to determine water use efficiency. 

Chemical soil characterization. Samples of each root zone mix were collected 
from the top 15 cm of each lysimeter upon completion of Phase III to determine soil 
chemical properties. Samples were analyzed for pH (1 soil:2 water), water-extractable P, 
and acetic acid-extractable P, K, Ca, and Mg by the University of Florida's IFAS 
Everglades REC soil testing laboratory, Belle Glade, Florida (Sanchez, 1990). 

Cation exchange capacity. Cation exchange capacity of root zone mixtures was 
determined for the top 15 cm following completion of Phase III. Cation exchange 
capacity was determined by the unbuffered salt extraction method (Sumner and Miller, 
1996). This procedure measures the CEC of the soil at its "field pH" value. Ammonium 



23 
chloride serves as the saturating reagent, and potassium nitrate is the displacing reagent. 

Statistical analysis. 
Statistical analysis of data was accomplished using ANOVA procedures (SAS, 
1988). Means separation was accomplished using Duncan's Multiple Range 
Comparisons with P >0.05. 
Artificially-coated sand rate study 2002 

Forty lysimeters were constructed at the Univ. of Florida's Envirotron Res. 
Facility in Gainesville, FL in the spring of 2002 using a different artificially-coated sand 
than was used in the previous glasshouse studies in order to permit a greater rate of 
emathlite clay coating. The artificially-coated sand material consisted of quartz sand 
coated with emathlite clay at the rate of 100 g clay kg 1 , with thermally-set Cascophen R 
resin (Borden Chemical, Inc., Columbus, OH) at lOOg kg" 1 as the binder. The 45-cm tall 
by 15-cm dia. cylindrical lysimeters consisted of a 30-cm root-zone placed over 15-cm of 
pea gravel. An intermediate "choker" layer was not used between the sand and gravel. 
Five rates of sand, artificially-coated with a Ca-saturated montmorillonite clay (emathlite) 
at 10 % by weight, were mixed with uncoated sand in a cement mixer to provide rates of 
0, 125, 250, 500, and 750 ml artificially-coated sand L" 1 total sand and two rates of peat 
and 100 ml L" 1 of final mix. Treatments were replicated in four randomized complete 
blocks resulting in 40 lysimeters as experimental units each measuring 1 77 cm 2 in surface 
area. Each lysimeter was sprigged with 'Tifdwarf bermudagrass at 5 g moist sprigs 
lysimeter' 1 . Fertilizer was added at sprigging to supply 5 g N m' 2 , 5 g P m' 2 , and 10 g K 
m" 2 . Additional N, P, and K were applied during the study (Table 3-8). Ammonium 



24 
Nitrate, (NH 4 ) 2 S0 4 , NH 4 H 2 P0 4 , and KC1 were the fertilizer sources used to supply each 
lysimeter with N, P, and K. Bermudagrass coverage rate was evaluated 10, 17, 23. and 
31 DAP. Coverage scores (0-100%) were taken for each experimental unit based on 
visual observations. 

Physical characterization. Samples from each treatment were collected at 
construction to evaluate base-line soil physical properties. Each sample was put into a 
5.0-cm diameter by 7.5-cm deep cylinder. The media were compacted by 15 drops of a 
1 .36-kg hammer from a height of 30 cm, and analyzed for saturated hydraulic 
conductivity, total pore space and pore space distribution, bulk density, and particle 
density, by USGA methods (Hummel, 1993). 

Statistical analysis. Response data were analyzed by the linear-plateau model 
(Dahnke and Olson, 1990; Cerrato an Blackmer, 1990) using SAS PROC NLIN (SAS, 
1988). Statistical analysis of physical characteristic data was accomplished using 
ANOVA procedures (SAS, 1988). 

Field Studies 
Field Study 1 2001-2002 

Establishment. Sixteen experimental plots were constructed at the Univ. of 
Florida's Fort Lauderdale Research and Education Center in Davie, FL in the fall of 2001 
by expanding a previously described lysimeter facility from 12 to 16 plots (Snyder and 
Cisar, 1993). Plots 0.5-m wide by 2.0-m long, encased with plywood along the perimeter 
to a depth of 30 cm in order to hydraulically isolate the added soil mixtures from the 
surrounding root-zone media, constructed to USGA specifications, consisted of a 30-cm 



25 
root-zone placed over 5-cm of an intermediate "choker" layer and 15-cm of quartz pea 
gravel with one "40 quart stock pot" 35.6-cm inside diameter, 40.6-cm tall lysimeter in 
the center. The root-zone mix, choker layer, and pea gravel in each lysimeter was 
suspended on a perforated-metal stainless-steel plate, as has been previously described 
(Snyder and Cisar, 1993). Percolate was collected off-site under vacuum through a 
stainless-steel tube that extended to the bottom of the lysimeter. Treatments included 
uncoated sand, uncoated sand and peat (100 ml peat L" 1 ), naturally-coated sand and peat, 
and uncoated sand and peat amended with artificially coated sand (25% v/v). The 
uncoated and naturally-coated sand were obtained from the Golf Agronomics Ortona 
(uncoated) and Clermont (naturally-coated), FL blending facilities. The artificially- 
coated sand (Ca-montmorillonite, 10 % by weight) was similar to that used in the 
glasshouse rate study, previously described. Treatments were replicated in a latin square 
design resulting in 16 experimental units each measuring 1 m 2 in surface area. A latin 
square design was used in order to account for variability in two directions caused by 
increasing root zone depth from west to east and irrigation coverage from the north to 
south. Each experimental unit was sprigged with 200 g moist 'Tifdwarf bermudagrass 
sprigs m' 2 on September 24, 2001. Fertilizer was added at sprigging to supply 5 g N m'\ 
1 .5 g P m"\ and 2.7 g K m' 2 . Additional N, P, and K using a complete fertilizer blend 
consisting of potassium nitrate, ammonium phosphate, and ammonium nitrate was the 
fertilizer source used to supply each experimental unit with N, P. K and micronutrients 
throughout the establishment phase, and once during the maintenance period at 103 DAP. 
Additional fertilizer applications during the maintenance phase consisted of only N in the 



26 
form of ammonium sulfate at 5.25 g N m 2 . The establishment phase spanned 91 days (0 
to 91 DAP) with the maintenance period beginning at 92 DAP and extending to 213 
DAP. 

Bermudagrass coverage rate was evaluated 14, 21, 32, 38, 50, and 57 DAP. 
Coverage scores (0-100%) were taken for each experimental unit based on visual 
observations. 

Soil moisture readings were measured using a Theta-Probe (Delta-T Devices Ltd, 
Cambridge, UK). Soil moisture readings were measured to a depth of 6 cm at various 
times throughout the establishment period and 12 h following 4:30 am irrigation events. 

Physical soil characterization. Samples from each treatment were collected at the 
time of construction to evaluate base-line soil physical properties. Each sample was put 
into a PVC cylinder 5.0-cm diameter by 7.5-cm deep cylinder. The media were 
compacted and analyzed by USGA methods (Hummel, 1993). 

At the completion of the study, undisturbed cores were taken from each 
experimental unit using a double-cylinder hammer driven core sampler at depths to 1 5 
cm for soil moisture characterization. A total of 16, 3.0 by 5.56-cm cores were taken. 
Cores were stored in plastic bags and refrigerated until moisture release curves could be 
determined. The cores were installed in model 1400 Tempe cells (Soil Moisture 
Equipment, Santa Barbara, CA), saturated, and pressure was applied at increasing levels 
(0.3 - 1500 -kPa). Moisture at permanent wilting point was determined using 1500 -kPa 
chambers. 



27 
Nutrient mobility. An evaluation of the mobility of P and K was initiated at 
sprigging. Collection of leachate was based on irrigation and rainfall amounts. Upon 
collection of leachate from the field lysimeters, leachate volume was recorded and 20 ml 
was decanted into scintillation vials. A drop of chloroform followed by refrigeration at 4° 
C preserved samples. Leachates were analyzed for P and K using phosphomolybdate 
color-detection spectrophotometry for P and atomic adsorption spectrophotometry for K. 

Plant tissue. Bermudagrass clippings were harvested 39. 51. 58. 75. 82. and 89 
DAP during the establishment period and 130, 143, 157, 170, and 187 DAP during 
maintenance at a height of 6.35 mm using a walk behind reel-type mower. The harvested 
tissue was oven dried at 60° C for 48 h, weighed and ground to < 2 mm in a stainless 
steel mill (Arthur Thomas Co., Philadelphia, PA), wet digested (Lowther, 1986) and 
analyzed for P and K using phosphomolybdate color-detection spectrophotometry for P 
and atomic adsorption spectrophotometry for K. Uptake of P and K were calculated as 
the product of tissue concentration and the harvest weight. Total clipping yield was 
determined as the summation of dried verdure harvest weights. 

Chemical soil characterization. Samples of each root zone mix were collected at 
construction to determine base-line soil chemical properties. In addition, composite soil 
samples consisting of six samples to 10 cm cores were taken from each plot using a 1.9- 
cm diameter sampler at the completion of the grow-in period (92 DAP) and maintenance 
period (215 DAP). Samples were analyzed for pH (1 soil:2 water), water-extractable P, 
and acetic acid-extractable P, K, Ca, and Mg by the University of Florida's IFAS 
Everglades REC soil testing laboratory, Belle Glade, Florida (Sanchez, 1990). 



28 
Cation exchange capacity. Cation exchange capacity of root zone mixtures was 
determined prior to construction and at the completion of the maintenance period (215 
DAP). Cation exchange capacity was determined by the unbuffered salt extraction 
method (Sumner and Miller, 1996). This procedure measures the cation exchange 
capacity of the soil at its "field pH" value. Ammonium chloride serves as the saturating 
reagent, and potassium nitrate is the displacing reagent. 

Statistical analysis. Statistical analysis of data was accomplished using ANOVA 
procedures (SAS, 1988). Means separation was accomplished using Duncan's Multiple 
Range Comparisons with P <0.05. 
Field Study II: 2002 

A second field study trial was conducted during summer and fall 2002. Upon 
completion of field study I, sod and soil were removed from each of the 16 plots to a 
depth of 10 cm. Vapam, a soil fumigant, was used to kill any remaining plant material. 
The Vapam was applied at 100 ml Vapam m' 2 and the plots were covered with plastic, 
stapled to the wooden frame which isolates the plots from the surrounding green, and 
sand was placed on the surface of the plastic around the plot perimeter to assist in 
retention of the Vapam vapor. The plastic was removed 72 h following Vapam 
application. Any remaining plant material was removed using a three pronged hand 
weeder and discarded. The plots were re-leveled with additional amounts of the 
appropriate root-zone mixture prior to planting. On June 7, 2002 plots were sprigged 
with 200 g moist cv. Tifdwarf bermudagrass sprigs m' 2 . Fertilizer was added at sprigging 
to supply 5 g N m" 2 , 1 .5 g P m' 2 , and 2.7 g K m' 2 using the same fertilizer source described 



29 
for Field Study I, and was the fertilizer source used to supply each experimental unit with 
N, P, K and micronutrients weekly throughout the establishment period. Biweekly 
fertilizer applications during the maintenance period consisted of only N in the form of 
ammonium sulfate at 5.25 g N m' 2 . The establishment period spanned 90 days (0 to 90 
DAP), and the maintenance period commenced at 91 DAP. 

Percent bermudagrass cover was determined 13, 26, 34, 40, 47, 55, 62, 69, and 76 
DAP. Cover scores were taken for each experimental unit based on visual observations. 

Soil moisture readings were measured using the Theta-Probe. Soil moisture 
readings were measured at various times throughout the establishment period and 12 h 
following 4:30 am irrigation events. 

Physical characterization. Samples from each treatment were collected at 
construction to evaluate base-line soil physical properties by USGA methods (Hummel, 
1993). 

Nutrient mobility. An evaluation of the mobility of P and K was initiated at 
sprigging. Collection of leachate was based on irrigation and rainfall amounts. Upon 
collection of leachate from the field lysimeters, leachate volume was recorded and 20 ml 
was decanted into scintillation vials. A drop of chloroform followed by refrigeration 
preserved samples. Leachates were analyzed for P and K using phosphomolybdate color- 
detection spectrophotometry for P and atomic adsorption spectrophotometry for K. 

Plant tissue. Bermudagrass clippings were harvested 28, 34, 41, 47, 55, 62, 69, 
76, 83, and 90 DAP during the establishment period and weekly during maintenance at a 
height of 7.87 mm using a walk behind reel-type mower. The harvested tissue was oven 



30 
dried at 60° C for 48 h, weighed and ground to < 2 mm in a stainless steel mill, wet 
digested (Lowther, 1986,) and analyzed for P and K using phosphomolybdate color- 
detection spectrophotometry for P and atomic adsorption spectrophotometry for K. 
Uptake of P and K were calculated as the product of tissue concentration and the harvest 
weight. Total clipping production was determined as the summation of dried verdure. 

Chemical soil characterization. Samples from each treatment were collected at 
the start of the second field study to evaluate base-line soil chemical properties. In 
addition, composite soil samples consisting of six samples to 10 cm were taken from 
each plot using a 1 .9-cm diameter core sampler at the completion of the grow-in period 
(90 DAP) and maintenance period ( 180 DAP). Samples were analyzed for pH (1 soil:2 
water), and acetic acid extractable P, K, Ca, and Mg by the University of Florida's IFAS 
Everglades REC soil testing laboratory, Belle Glade. Florida (Sanchez, 1990). 

Bromide and rubidium. On August 8, 2002 (62 DAP) sodium bromide and 
rubidium chloride were applied at 15 g NaBr m' 2 and 2 g Rb m " 2 in order to monitor water 
movement and investigate cation exchange characteristics of the root-zone mixtures. 
Soil samples were taken from each plot 42 days after application (DAA) and extracted 
for Rb using acetic acid as stated above. Leachates and soil were analyzed for Br and Rb 
using a Br specific electrode and atomic adsorption spectrophotometry for Rb. 

Cation exchange capacity. Cation exchange capacity of root zone mixtures was 
determined prior to the second field study and at the completion of the maintenance 
period (180 DAP). Cation exchange capacity was measured using the unbuffered salt 
extraction method (Sumner and Miller, 1996). 



cj 

o 

o 

CN 

i 

© 

o 
o 
cs 



o 

c 

_o 

■*— ' 
3 
-C 



• — 

a 

5 

1 






JQ 

H 



+ 



* 
# 

— 
> 

* 

in 

> 



* 
* 



u 


* 


VI 


;/; 


K3 


:;. 


•C 




CU 




C 






CA 


-T3 


2 


3 




vi 




U 

a. 
>> 


C/3 

U 


■~-< 




•n 




c 


CA 


eg 


U 


<*- 


> 



o 



q 
cs 



© — 



u 

c 
>, 
E- 






31 



— 


c> 


rn 




cs 


d 


p— 




r*} 


VD 


Oj 




(N 


■* 


r«-> 




oc 


o 


t^ 




ri 


t> 


_! 




IN 


rj 


<N 




oc 


rn 


^~ 




ri 


to 


Ov 




C) 


tN 


^^ 




«q 


q 


(N 




d 


>* 


in 




ri 


vC 


ir> 




C^ 




SO 




ri 


e> 


d 




■ 


in 


CN 







o 


. 




CS 


d 


d 


ystem 
ystem 


o 


O 


o 


V) Cfl 


d 


d 


d 


cation 
cation 






•v 


E !d 




T3 


ra 


K> (/I 




C 
C3 


VI 


_rt J2 




K 


•a 


o o 




-o 




< < 


C 

« 

-a 




u 

1 


CO 

o 

U 
i 


heUSG 
he USD 


u 




C3 


— ■*-» 


t — i 








C3 


n 


O 


>> >> 


c 
u 

c 


- 
*-* 




CQ CQ 


D 


z 


< 


* * 



32 
Table 3-2 Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during phase I 2000. 
Week Nt PJ '" KJ 
g m" 2 



1-4 10.0 5.0 10.0 

5-8 10.0 2.5 10.0 

9-12 7.5 1.2 5.0 

13-16 10.0 1.2 5.0 

17-20 lOO 12 _10 

Total 47.5 11.3 35.0 



t Applied biweekly 
JApplied monthly 



Table 3-3 Total quantity of water applied to lysimeters during water use efficiency trials 

in phase I 2000. ' 

Water Use Efficiency Trial Total water applied 

- - g lysimeter" 1 - - 

3 -16 Aug 550 

17 Aug -14 Sept 1260 

15 Sept- 12 Oct 695 



33 

Table 3-4 Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during maintenance period 2000 
- 2001 following phase I 2000. 



Month 


Days after Planting 


Nt 


PJ 


KJ 




142 - 160 




.? 




October 


10.0 


5 ill 

1.2 


5.0 


November 


161-191 


10.0 


1.2 


5.0 


December 


192-222 


10.0 


1.2 


5.0 


January 


223 - 253 


10.0 


1.2 


5.0 


February 


254-281 


10.0 


1.2 


5.0 


March 


282-312 


10.0 


1.2 


5.0 


April 


313-341 


10.0 


12 


5.0 


Total 




70.0 


8.4 


35.0 


t Applied biweekly 
JApplied monthly 









34 



Table 3-5 Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during phase II 2001. 
Week Nt PJ KJ 



gm" 2 - 



1-4 10.0 5.0 10.0 

5-8 10.0 2.5 10.0 

9-12 10.0 1.2 5.0 

13-15 O0 Q& _0J) 

Total 30.0 8.2 25.0 



t Applied biweekly 
JApplied monthly 



35 



Table 3-6 Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during maintenance period 

following phase II 2001. 

Month Days after Planting Nt P| KJ_ 



August 


447 - 465 


September 


466 - 495 


October 


496 - 526 


November 


527-556 


December 


557-587 


January 


588-618 


February 


619-646 


March 


647 - 677 


Total 




t Applied biweekly 
J Applied monthly 





- - - g m 




10.0 


1.2 


5.0 


5.0 


1.2 


5.0 


10.0 


1.2 


5.0 


5.0 


0.0 


0.0 


10.0 


1.2 


5.0 


10.0 


1.2 


5.0 


10.0 


1.2 


5.0 


5.0 


12 


5.0 


65.0 


8.4 


35.0 



36 



Table 3-7 Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during phase HI 2002. 
Week Nt ?t K{ 



_■> 



gm 

1-4 10.0 5.0 10.0 

5-8 10.0 2.5 10.0 

9-12 7.5 1.2 5.0 

13-16 5.0 0.0 0.0 

17 JXO O0 _O0 

Total 32.5 8.7 25.0 



t Applied biweekly 
J Applied monthly 



37 



Table 3-8 Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium applied during artificially-coated sand 

rate study. 

Days after planting Nt PJ KJ 

g m' 2 

0-10 10.0 5.0 10.0 

10-20 5.0 0.0 0.0 

20-31 _O0 O0 ,0,0 

Total 10.0 5.0 10.0 

t Applied biweekly 
^Applied monthly 



CHAPTER 4 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Glasshouse Studv: Phase I Year 2000 

Physical Characterization of Root-Zone Medium in Undisturbed Cores 

Saturated hydraulic conductivity' AC .,,) 

Neither peat nor coating affected K^, (Table 4-1). For K^, there was no 
interaction (P > 0.05) between the main effects of peat and coatings. The K^, of all 
treatments exceeded the accelerated range of 30-60 cm hr" 1 specified for putting green 
root zone mixes by the USGA (USGA Green Section Staff, 1993). This indicates that the 
sand grain coatings, natural or artificial, and peat did not reduce root zone percolation rate 
over the short term. Bigelow et al. (2000) observed a decrease in percolation rate when 
sand was amended with peat, however no effect of peat on K^, was observed. A lack of 
compaction of the experimental columns may have led to the high K^, values and lack of 
differentiation among the treatments (Brown and Duble, 1975). 
Volumetric water content 

The volumetric water content of all undisturbed samples decreased as water 
potential became more negative (Table 4-2, Fig 4-1). At certain water potentials 
differences were noted among the treatments. Since there were no interactions among the 
main effects, except at -1500 kPa, only main effect means are presented. The interaction 



38 



39 

at -1500 kPa occurred because the uncoated sand with peat contained much more water 
relative to the uncoated sand without peat than the comparisons of the two coated sands 
with and without peat, i.e., the interaction was one of magnitude, not direction. (data not 
presented). Peat increased water retention at all pressures (Table 4-2, Fig 1 ). For the 
artificially-coated sands there was a greater decrease in water content between -0.3 and - 
3.0 kPa than was found for the other sands, which was likely due to the larger particle 
size of the sand which was coated. But, at < - 4 k Pa, the artificially -coated sands 
retained significantly more water than uncoated sands. At a water potential of -10 kPa 
(field capacity), artificially-coated sand with peat had the greatest water retention. Thus, 
at low tensions, where aeration could be a problem because of water displacing air from 
soil pores, the artificially-coated sand did not hold as much water as uncoated sand. 
However, the artificially-coated sand held water well at higher tensions which generally 
are associated with problems of insufficient moisture. Bigelow et al. (2000) suggested 
that an ideal soil or amendment is one that releases water at low tensions and retains 
significant amounts at moderate tension. In general, there was no difference in water 
content of the uncoated and naturally-coated sands. 
Chemical Soil Characterization 

The pH of all sand types were in the acidic range with artificially-coated sand 
having the lowest pH (Table 4-3). Uncoated sand had the highest pH, most likely 
because of the pH of water used for pH measurement. Since the uncoated sand and clay 
had pH values of 6.4 and 7.0, respectively, the low pH of the artificially-coated sand 
probably originated from the polymer coating due to residual acidity following 



40 
polymerization. Being a proprietary product, the detailed chemistry of the polymer is not 
available. 

The cation exchange capacities of sand varied with coating type (Table 4-3). . 
Artificially-coated sand had greater CEC than naturally-coated sand. The higher CEC of 
the artificially-coated sand relative to the naturally-coated sand stems from the type of 
clay and the amount of coating present. Low CEC kaolinitic type clay predominate the 
surface of naturally-coated sand whereas a higher CEC montmorillonitic type clay was. 
used to coat the artificially-coated sand. In addition, less than 2 % silt plus clay generally 
constitute natural coatings while the artificially-coated sand was coated with 4 % clay by 
weight. Uncoated sand had the lowest CEC. 

Phosphorus and K concentrations of the naturally occurring uncoated and 
naturally-coated sand were less than that of the artificially-coated sand (Table 4-3). Both 
uncoated and naturally-coated sand had low background levels of water soluble P, 
extractable P, and K. In contrast, artificially-coated sand had higher levels of extractable 
and water soluble P and K than uncoated and naturally-coated sand. Greater P content of 
artificially-coated sand can likely be attributed to P rich clay (4.03% P 2 5 ) (MFM Corp., 
Lowell, FL) used and perhaps some contribution coming from the polymer. 

Oxalate extractable Al and Fe was generally greatest for naturally-coated sand 
indicating a high level of P sorption (Table 4-4). Uncoated and artificially-coated sand 
oxalate extractable Fe were below detection limit (bdl) of 0.02 mg kg. Oxalate 
extractable P value of artificially-coated sand confirms high soil test P observed 
previously ( Table 4-2). 



41 
Bermudagrass Percent Coverage 

Rapid establishment is critical both for agronomic and financial reasons. For 
example, rapid turf establishment reduces the invasion of weed species (Beard, 1982). In 
addition, the opening of a turf area for play hinges on the establishment rate of the turf. 
For purposes here, coverage is defined as the lysimeter surface area overlain with 
bermudagrass. 

Although several authors have observed an increase in percent coverage because 
of peat (Nus et al., 1987; Bigelow et al., 2000; Waltz and McCarty, 2000; Brown et al., 
2000), the inclusion of peat in the sand root zone mixture did not influence percent 
coverage in this glasshouse study (Table 4-5). Establishment was, however, affected by 
the presence of coatings. Possibly, the reduced ability of the uncoated sands, with and 
without peat, to retain moisture near the surface at higher moisture tensions (Fig 4-1) 
hindered the ability of the grass to establish quickly. Brown et al. (2000) also observed 
greater bermudagrass percent coverage in the presence of sand grain coatings. However, 
since peat did not influence percent coverage, and the frequent irrigation used during 
establishment, the reason for the difference may be more nutritionally related. 
Along with water, P plays a critical role in the establishment of warm-season turfgrasses 
(Turner and Hummel, 1992). As will be discussed later, naturally-coated sands retain 
more P than uncoated and artificially-coated sand, which also may have affected percent 
coverage. 



42 
Clipping Yield 

Since only one interaction between the main effects (peat and coating) was 
observed (43 d after planting), only main effect means are presented. The interaction 
occurred on the 43 DAP harvest because on that date harvested biomass was greater in 
the naturally-coated sand without peat than in naturally-coated sand with peat (data not 
presented). Total clipping yield over the four harvest periods was greater in root zones 
amended with peat than in those without peat (Table 4-6). Brown et al. (2000) also 
observed an increase in total clipping yield when peat was added regardless of the 
presence of coating. The effect of peat was most pronounced during the first 29 d, when 
water availability and retention was critical to the establishment of newly planted sprigs. . 
This more precise measurement of bermudagrass growth supports previous findings in 
which turfgrass establishment rate was increased by peat ((Nus et al., 1987; Bigelow et 
al., 2000; Waltz and McCarty, 2000; Brown et al., 2000) but was not detected by visual 
observations in this study. 

An effect of coating on clipping yield was observed on each of the four harvest 
periods (Table 4-6). The presence of sand grain coatings increased clipping yield well 
into establishment. With the exception of the final harvest, more clipping yield was 
produced with the two coated sands than with the uncoated sand. In addition, more total 
clipping yield was produced from naturally-coated sand than artificially-coated sand. 
This effect of coating on clipping yield production was likely the result of the improved 
retention of water (Table 4-2) and nutrients (data to be presented below). 



43 
K Leaching 

There was no interaction among the treatments peat and coating, so only main 
effect means are presented (Table 4-7). It appears that the measured CEC characteristics 
of artificially- and naturally -coated sand (Table 4-3) reduced K loss at 7 DAP. More than 
20% of the applied K was leached from the uncoated sand. Less than 4% of the applied K 
was leached from the artificially-coated sand. Less K was leached from the naturally- 
coated sand than the uncoated sand. 

At 14 DAP, the greatest quantity of K was leached from uncoated and naturally- 
coated sand. The quantity of K leached from naturally-coated sand did not increase 
compared with the first leachate. Moreover, the lack of differentiation between uncoated 
and naturally-coated sand was probably the result of large quantity of K already leached 
by 7 DAP, making less available for leaching 14 DAP. 

Less K was leached from all treatments 21 DAP, probably due to diminishing K 
quantities in the root zone mixes. No difference in K leached was observed between 
naturally-coated and uncoated sand. Twenty-eight DAP less K leached from artificially- 
coated sand than uncoated sand. 

At 30 DAP, N, P, and K were reapplied. This influx of K provided similar 
statistical separation of treatments on 35 DAP as occurred at 7 DAP, which also followed 
K fertilization. There appeared to be less K leaching 35 DAP, perhaps because of greater 
K uptake by a more dense stand of turf. Less K was leached from the naturally- and 
artificially-coated sands, indicating that the coatings present on the sand grain surface 
were reducing K leaching. At 35 DAP, a peat x coating interaction showed that peat 



44 
greatly reduced K leaching from uncoated sand (2.24 g K m" 2 without peat vs 0.89 g K m* 2 
with peat), whereas peat had little effect on leaching from the coated sands (0.15 [no peat] 
vs 0.20 [peat] and 0.33 [no peat] vs .033 [peat] for the artificially- and naturally-coated 
sands, respectively (Table 4-8). 

The leachates at 49 and 56 DAP were similar to previous leaching events which 
occurred following large K losses several weeks after K application, in that statistical 
separation between treatments decreased with time following K fertilization. Potassium 
leaching was decreased by peat for the coated sands, whereas K leaching was increased 
by the presence of peat in the uncoated sand. This may have occurred because of 
leaching of K that was weakly adsorbed by peat during the previous leaching events, and 
which ultimately only leached in the absence of coating on the sands. 

Potassium was applied at half the previous rate 56 DAP, i.e. 2 wk prior to 70 
DAP. The greatest quantity of K was leached from uncoated sand. The presence of sand 
grain coatings once again proved critical in reducing K leaching losses. The same type of 
interaction among main effects occurred during the eighth leaching as occurred during the 
fifth event, which also was the first leaching event after a fertilization (Table 4-7). Peat 
greatly reduced K leaching in the uncoated sand, but did not do so for coated sands (Table 
4-7). The greatest quantity of K was leached from uncoated sand. Chung et al. (1999) 
reported that 1 1% of total K, applied as KC1, was leached from bermudagrass grown on a 
USGA root-zone mix containing uncoated sand as compared to 31% reported in this 
study for uncoated sand and 16% for naturally-coated sand. Only 4% of the applied K 
was leached from artificially-coated sand. 



45 

Total K leached was not reduced by peat (Table 4-7). Bell (1959) demonstrated 
that trivalent and divalent cations were absorbed much more strongly by Sphagnum than 
monovalent ones. 
K Uptake 

The presence of coatings and the inclusion of peat influenced K uptake (Table 4- 
9). At 29 DAP, the greatest quantity of K uptake occurred in the naturally-coated sand, 
and greater K uptake occurred in artificially-coated sand than in uncoated sand. 
Moreover, the lowest concentration of tissue K was observed in the uncoated sand 
treatment (Table A-l). Tissue K concentration ranged from 10.0 to 14.6 g K kg' 1 which is 
within the sufficiency range of 10 to 30 g kg' 1 in bermudagrass tissue reported by 
Sartain, 1999. Tissue K concentration did not differ between naturally- and artificially- 
coated sand 29 DAP (Table A-l). 

Potassium uptake increased as clipping production increased (Table 4-6) 43 and 
58 DAP. Potassium uptake by bermudagrass growing in artificially- and naturally-coated 
sand was greater than uptake in uncoated sand. Artificially- and naturally-coated sand 
improved K tissue concentration over that of uncoated sand (Table A-l). 

The fourth harvest, 71 DAP, occurred 2 wk following K reapplication. Uptake of 
K from uncoated sand was the lowest compared with the other treatments. However, K 
uptake improved in comparison to the 29 and 58 DAP harvest dates. This increase in K 
uptake was likely the result of delaying the scheduled leachate event 1 wk, thereby 



46 
allowing a total of 2 wk between K application and leaching. Delaying the leaching event 
meant that K was not leached from the root zones of uncoated, naturally -coated, and 
artificially-coated sands, and was therefore, available for plant uptake. 
P Leaching 

The low P retention capacity of USGA greens is often a source of criticism. 
Brown et al. (2000) reported that the use of coated sands in a USGA root zone mix 
increased P retention relative to uncoated sand. Monoammonium phosphate (MAP) was 
not included as a source of P in the Brown et al. (2000) study. In the present study, which 
used MAP as the P source, reduced P leaching in the presence of naturally-coated sand 
also was observed (Table 4-10). 

Although there was a peat x coating interaction for five leaching events, only main 
effect means are presented in Table 4-10. Peat x coating interactions are presented in 
Table 4-11. The greatest quantities of P leaching occurred in those leachate events which 
followed the application of P. Seventeen percent of the 2.5 g P m' 2 which was applied to 
uncoated sand prior to leaching was lost 7 DAP. Chung et al. (1999) observed a loss of 8 
% of applied P as MAP from an uncoated sand and peat (85:15) USGA mix from a 
leaching event which directly followed P application. Large quantities of P were leached 
from artificially-coated sand 7 DAP. Phosphorus losses from artificially-coated sand are 
likely attributed to the integral P content of the artificially-coated sand associated with the 
clay (Table 4-3). No P loss was observed for the naturally-coated sand. Reduced P 
leaching from naturally-coated sand can be attributed to high oxalate extractable Fe and 
Al (Table 4-4). 



47 
A greater quantity of P continued to leach from artificially-coated sand than any 

other treatments from 14 to 28 DAP. In addition, more P was leached from uncoated 

sand with and without peat than naturally-coated sand. 

The leachate event 35 DAP occurred 1 wk following a second application of P at 

2.5 g P m" 2 . P leached from uncoated sand increased relative to that determined 28 DAP. 

Artificially-coated sand continued its trend of P loss 35 DAP. The naturally-coated sands 

continued to reduce P loss. 

Similar results were observed for leachate events occurring 49, 56, and 70 DAP. 

Naturally-coated sand showed better P retention over that of uncoated and artificially- 
coated sand. 

For most of the leaching events, and for the total leaching, peat increased P 
leaching. Brown et al. (2000) also observed greater P leaching in the presence of peat 
additions. For certain leaching events and for total leaching, however, there were 
interactions between the main effects peat and coating with regard to P leaching. On 
leaching events 14, 21, and 28 DAP, peat resulted in more P leaching, but the magnitude 
of the increase relative to no peat varied inconsistently with coating. But for the leaching 
events 35 and 70 DAP, peat resulted in less leaching of P in uncoated sand, whereas it 
was generally associated with more leaching of P in the coated sands. 

Perhaps, the total quantity of P leached over eight leaching events provides a more 
clear picture of the influence of each treatment on P retention. The greatest quantity of P 
was leached from artificially-coated sand, and a greater quantity of P was leached from 
uncoated sand than from the naturally-coated sand. More P was leached when peat was 



in 



48 
the mix, likely due to P mineralization. Clymo (1963) observed that the chemical nature 
of sphagnum exchange sites appear to be unesterified polyuronic acids in the cells walls 
and went on to demonstrate that anion exchange in Sphagnum was very weak with P ions 
absorption only occurring by living Sphagnum leaves. Furthermore, Nichols and Boelter 
(1982) noted that peats low in Al and Fe exhibit very low P reduction capabilities, as the 
organic fraction had almost no P absorption capacity. 
P Uptake 

Phosphorus is generally required is smaller amounts than K. Phosphorus tissue 
content sufficiency ranges between 3.0 - 5.5 g kg" 1 (Turner and Hummel, 1992). Coating 
and peat had an effect on P uptake (Table 4-12). 

Since there were no interactions between the main effects peat and coating, only 
means for main effects are presented. During the first harvest period (29 DAP), the 
greatest P uptake occurred from naturally- and artificially-coated sands. Uncoated sand 
had the smallest quantity of P uptake probably because less P was retained in the root 
zone and because there was less clipping yield produced. Tissue P concentration from 
uncoated sand was less than the critical value of 3.0 g kg" 1 for P sufficiency (Turner and 
Hummel, 1992) (Table A-2). Although mean tissue P concentration from naturally- 
coated sand was greater than the critical value of 3.0 g kg" 1 , there was no statistical 
difference in tissue P concentration between uncoated and naturally-coated sand. 

Artificially-coated sand improved P uptake 43 DAP. Despite the marked 
reduction in P leached from naturally-coated sand, P uptake did not improve from this 
treatment at 43 DAP, indicating that P retained in the root zone was not immediately 



49 
available for plant uptake. Tissue P concentration from naturally-coated sand was less 

than that of uncoated sand 43 DAP (Table A-2). It appears that P sorbed by naturally- 
coated sand is resistant to desorption (Harris et al., 1996) thereby reducing its availability 
and absorption by plants, whereas in artificially-coated sand uptake is not so severely 
reduced. At 58 DAP, however, P uptake was greater in naturally-coated sand than 
uncoated sand. However, since, there was no difference in tissue P concentration 
between naturally-coated and uncoated sand 58 DAP (Table A-2), greater P uptake from 
naturally-coated sand occurred because of greater clipping production (Table 4-6) 
(Russell, 1977). Phosphorus uptake and tissue P concentration was still the greatest in 
artificially-coated sand 58 DAP. 

Phosphorus was applied two weeks prior to the fourth harvest (71 DAP) with only 
one leachate event occurring between P reapplication and harvest. As with K, P uptake 
improved as a result of this delay. There was no difference among treatments, except 
peat, at 71 DAP. In addition, tissue P concentration was greater than 3.0 g kg" 1 in all 
treatments. Tissue P concentration from artificially-coated sand remained greater than 
that of naturally-coated sand (Table A-2). 

The presence of peat in the root zone mixture increased P uptake (Table 4-12). 
The observed increase in P uptake is best explained by increased clipping production of 
bermudagrass in the presence of peat (Table 4-6). Peat only improved tissue P 
concentration once during Phase I (43 DAP). Finally, peat increased total P uptake. 



50 
Water Use Efficiency 

In all three trials conducted during glasshouse study Phase I, greater water use 
efficiency was observed when peat was incorporated into the root zone mixes (Table 4- 
13). Peat has a high water holding capacity, retaining up to 20 times its dry weight (Brady 
and Weil, 2000). In addition, water held by peat is readily available for plant use (Brady 
and Weil, 2000). The ability of peat to provide such benefits over a long period of time, 
however, is uncertain. Sphagnum peat is sold in a relatively undecomposed state. Maas 
and Adamson (1972) reported that sphagnum peat was stable after 36 mo incubation. 
Horn (1970), however, observed that in Florida, where warm temperatures, high rainfall, 
and high microbial activity exist, peat additions to soils are may be oxidized within one 
year. 

Since an interaction between main effects (peat, coating) was observed only on 14 
September, only main effect means are presented (Table 4-13). In the first WUE trial 
naturally-coated sand had greater WUE than both uncoated and artificially-coated sand 
(Table 4-5). However, for the 14 September trial, the WUE for naturally-coated sand 
without peat was less than that for artificially-coated sand without peat (data not 
presented). The duration of the first WUE trial was only 2 wk and may not have provided 
enough time for treatment separation. All treatments separated in the second WUE trial 
which was conducted over a 4 wk period. Coated sands had greater WUE values than 
uncoated sand. The third WUE trial was also conducted over a 4 wk period, but, only an 
effect of peat was observed. For undetermined reasons, an effect of coating was not 
observed. Perhaps due to late season conditions there may have been less water demand. 



51 
Summary: Phase I 

The presence of sand grain coatings influenced many of the responses studied in 
Phase I. K^t, however, was not influenced by sand grain coatings. Perhaps because of a 
greater degree of clay coating, artificially-coated sand had greater moisture retention than 
naturally-coated and uncoated sand. There was a difference in moisture retention 
detected between naturally-coated and uncoated sand. Sand grain coatings increased 
bermudagrass establishment rate and clipping production. Increases in water use 
efficiency were also observed. Sand grain coatings reduced K leaching and increased K 
uptake. Naturally-coated sand greatly increased P retention relative to uncoated sand, but 
this increase in P retention did not always translate into greater P uptake because of 
reduced availability. Tissue P concentration from naturally-coated sand were never 
greater than that of uncoated sand. The greatest P leaching occurred from artificially- 
coated sand. The presence of artificially-coated sand did, however, improve P uptake and 
tissue P concentration relative to uncoated and naturally-coated sand. 

Peat also influenced responses studied in Phase I. As with coatings, peat did not 
reduce K sat . Peat improved the water holding capacity of all sand types. Peat also 
improved clipping production during the early days of establishment. Peat, however, was 
not observed to increase percent coverage. In all trials, peat increased water use 
efficiency. Peat improved the poor K leaching characteristics of uncoated sand by 
buffering the loss of K immediately following K fertilization. Phosphorus leaching 
increased in the presence of peat. Finally, peat increased P and K uptake. Peat, however, 
was only observed to increase tissue P concentration once (43 DAP) during phase I 2000. 



52 

Table 4-1 Effect of coating and peat on saturated hydraulic conductivity. 

Peat Kj,, Sand coating K^, 

- -cm h" 1 - - - -cm h" 1 - - 

With 79.8at Uncoated 73.0a 

Without 73.2a Naturally 76.3a 

Artificially 80.2a 

tAny means within the same column and main effects (peat and sand coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



c 
p 

a 
u 



o 

■*-► 
CO 

a 

u 

c 
o 

N 
i 

o 
o 
c 

s 

o 

*-< 
CO 

u 



e 

CO 

o 

o 
o 

W 

<N 



X 
« 



o 
© 






o 



>n 



CO 

a. 
i 

c 

U 

o 

c 

hi 

u 

CO 



oc 



\o 



3 
CJ 
♦-» 

3 
c 
u 

Ih 

u 

o 

u 

E 

_3 

> 



m 



rs 



d 



u 

s 






CO 



CO 



CO 



co 

00 



CO 

oc 



CO 
CI 

OS 



CO 



CO 

SO 

so 



CO 

oc 

o 
(-1 



CO 

oc 



CN 



X 



x 
oo 

r-i 



o 



X! 

so 



00 



X 
X 

o> 



C) 



X 
00 

rs 

cn 

x 



3 
C 
X 



CO 

U 



£ £ 



Oil 

fl 

ea 

c 
u 

-o 
c 

CO 

03 



X 



X 



X 
oo 



X 



X 



u 



x 



CO 

^6 



CO 

oo 
oo 
CN 

X 

q 
oo 
m 



-a 
o 

**- 

CO 

o 
o 

c 

D 



X 

ON 



X 
to 



X 
00 



X 

M3 



X 
X 



CO 

If 



CO 

\6 



CO 

oo 
CN 

X 

so 

00 



rn 

tN 



CO 
O 

^6 



CO 

tN 



CO 



CO 



CO 
00 



CO 
OS 



CO 



o^ 2 



X 

o 
(N 



X 



CO 

tN 



>> •= 



CO 

c 

a 

CO 

2 



53 



c 

I 



o 
c 

g 

CO 

1- 

u 
C 

1> 



0.1 
X 
-*^ 

>> 

X 

-o 
u 

_o 

GC 

_3 
-^ 
CO 

O 

U 
-o 



on 

T3 



CO 

c 



u 

u 

V 

c 

CO 

S 



U 

!C 
u 

c 

"3 

E 

c 
u 

U 

X 

c 
_o 

— 

u 

C 



3 
T3 
U 

■g 

CO 

E 

o 

3 

g 

to 
o 
U 

3 
CO 

-o 

3 

CO 

CO 

u 

a. 



u u u 

Ml 

.5 '-3 o 

"I s ' 



i s 

a> 

E S 

E"Q , 

< >»u 
-I- * ++ 

in 

o 

d 

A 



CO 
<S! 

3 
C 

C 

CO 

Q. 

E 
o 



54 



-? 45 <L 
^ \ 

~ 40 lt \ 


— Uncoated 
-+_ Nat. Coated 


| 35% 

o vxS. 
O 30 - V\\ 


-►-Art. Coated 


| 25- \\\ 


-^. Unc + Peat 


z 20 \x\ 

1 15- \ ^^s___ 

i 10 ^ — °~~ - 

P r ""'v*-^^"" ~7 ~~i ... 


— Nat + Peat 


_^Art + Peat 




> 5 V— - ^tr— — 1_ ' 

■» ■ i i — 


*" i: j^Ny 


■ 





0.3 



4 6 8 10 15 20 34 1500 
Water Potential (-kPa) 



Fig. 4-1. Water release curve of undisturbed core root zone samples collected 
April 2000. Nat., Art., and Unc, refer to naturally, artificially, and uncoated sand, 
respectively. 



55 



Table 4-3 Soil chemical properties of materials used in glasshouse study. 

Type pH CEC Pa Pw K 







cmol c kg" 1 




---mgL 1 --- 




Uncoated sand 


6.4 


0.0 


2 


1 


2 


Naturally-coated sand 


5.4 


4.5 


2 


1 


4 


Artificially-coated sand 


3.8 


10.4 


555 


43 


9 


Ca-Montmorillonite clay 


7.0 


69.8 


758 


5 


52 



Pa, K - acetic acid-extractable P 
Pw - water extractable P 



Table 4-4 Oxalate extractable P, Al, and Fe of sands used in Phases I-III. 



Type 


P 


Al 


Fe 














mg Kg 




Uncoated sand 


21.6(±4.24) 


3.0(±0.00) 


bdlt 


Naturally-coated sand 


23.3(±0.20) 


198.1(±1.14) 


178.2(+1.02) 


Artificially-coated sand 


472.8(±10.2) 


32.3(±0.9) 


bdl 


Emathlite Clay 


12230(±430) 


3006(± 126) 


1561 (±179) 



t bdl signifies that instrument reading fell below detection limit. 



Table 4-5 Influence of peat and coating main effects on visual rating of coverage as a 
function of time after planting phase I 2000. 



Days after planting 



Main effects 21 29 36 43 



Peat 










With 


25at 


40a 


70a 


83a 


Without 


16a 


37a 


70a 


82a 


Sand coating 










Uncoated 


9b 


21b 


57b 


69b 


Naturally 


38a 


58a 


80a 


91a 


Artificially 


14b 


35b 


72a 


88a 



tAny means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



56 



Table 4-6. Influence of peat and coating main effects on clipping yield of bermudagrass 







Days after 


planting 






Main effects 


29 


43 


58 


71 


Total 








.i 






Peat 
With 
Without 

Sand coating 
Uncoated 
Naturally 
Artificially 


114at 
69b 

20c 

164a 

90b 


212J 
191 

137 
247 
220 


197a 
129b 

128b 
186a 
176a 


118a 
95a 

82b 
135a 
101b 


642a 
485b 

369c 
734a 
588b 



tAny means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



57 

Table 4-7 Influence of peat and coating main effects on K. leached as a function of time 

after planting, for K fertilization 0, 30, 57 days after planting phase I 2000. 

Main effects Days after planting 

7 14 21 28 35 49 56 70 Total Leached 

g m" 2 % 

Peat 
With 0.97at 0.73a 0.47a 0.45a 0.91J 0.39a 0.20J 0.09J 5.07a 14 

Without 1.57a 0.84a 0.42a 0.26a 0.48 0.44a 0.18 0.45 3.78a 11 
Sand coating 
Uncoated 2.30a 1.15a 0.64a 0.55a 1.57 J 0.66a 0.30 0.72 J 7.90a 23 
Naturally 1.12b 1.00a 0.56a 0.37ab 0.33 0.47a 0.20 0.03 4.08b 12 
Artificially 0.38b 0.20b 0.13b 0.15b 0.17 0.10b 0.08 0.07 1.30c 4 
t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

^Comparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 



Table 4-8 Interaction of peat and coating main effects on K leached as a function of time 
after planting for fertilization applied 0, 30, and 57 days after planting phase I 2000. 
Main effects Days after planting 



14 21 28 35 49 56 70 



Interaction means g m" 2 

Coating Peat 

Uncoated With 1.41 1.12 0.79 0.80 0.89 0.75 0.45 0.22 

Uncoated Without 3.20 1.19 0.50 0.29 2.24 0.58 0.15 1.22 

Naturally With 1.00 0.82 0.45 0.40 0.33 0.30 0.08 0.01 

Naturally Without 1.24 1.17 0.68 0.34 0.33 0.64 0.32 0.04 

Artificially With 0.51 0.25 0.17 0.15 0.20 0.11 0.08 0.05 

Artificially Without 0.26 0.16 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.08 

LSD 005 0.47 --- 0.21 0.24 

Significance of the 

interaction 0T0 0.52 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 



58 



Table 4-9 Influence of peat and coating main effects on K uptake by bermudagrass as a 
function of time after planting phase 1 2000. 



Main effects 




Days after 


planting 








29 


43 


58 


71 


Total 








_2 


















Peat 












With 


1.46at 


3.14a 


2.31a 


2.37a 


9.28a 


Without 


0.82b 


2.34b 


1.47b 


1.81b 


6.45b 


Sand coating 












Uncoated 


0.13c 


1.43b 


0.96b 


1.30c 


3.83c 


Naturally 


2.00a 


3.38a 


2.51a 


2.84a 


10.72a 


Artificially 


1.29b 


3.41a 


2.20a 


2.14b 


9.04b 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test 



59 

Table 4-10 Influence of peat and coating main effects on P leached as a function of time 

after planting for fertilization applied 0, 30, 57 days after planting phase I 2000. 

Main effects Days after planting 



14 21 28 35 49 56 70 Total Leached 











.2 










% 


Peat 








g m - - 












With 


0.49at 0.40$ 


0.35$ 


0.27$ 


0.26$ 


0.17a 


0.20a 


0.16$ 


2.31a 


21 


Without 


0.46a 0.25 


0.10 


0.10 


0.17 


0.10a 


0.13b 


0.14 


1.46b 


13 


Sand Coating 




















Uncoated 


0.43b 0.29 


0.18 


0.13 


0.23 


0.12b 


0.12b 


0.12 


1.63b 


14 


Naturally 


0.00c 0.02 


0.02 


0.02 


0.02 


0.01c 


0.02c 


0.01 


0.11c 


0.1 


Artificially 


0.99a 0.68 


0.49 


0.41 


0.39 


0.26a 


0.37a 


0.32 


3.91a 


35 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple 
Range Test. 



Table 4-1 1 Interaction of peat and coating main effects on P leached as a function of 
time after planting for fertilization applied 0, 30, and 57 days after planting phase I 2000. 



Main effects 






Days 


after planting 










7 


14 


21 


28 


35 


49 


56 


70 


Interaction means 
Coating Peat 










.-> 
















■ g m - ■ 








Uncoated With 


0.32 


0.35 


0.28 


0.21 


0.16 


0.15 


0.15 


0.09 


Uncoated Without 


0.54 


0.22 


0.09 


0.05 


0.29 


0.10 


0.08 


0.15 


Naturally With 


0.01 


0.02 


0.03 


0.03 


0.03 


0.02 


0.02 


0.02 


Naturally Without 


0.00 


0.01 


0.01 


0.01 


0.01 


0.00 


0.01 


0.00 


Artificially With 


1.15 


0.84 


0.76 


0.56 


0.57 


0.33 


0.43 


0.39 


Artificially Without 


0.82 


0.52 


0.21 


0.25 


0.22 


0.20 


0.31 


0.25 


^kD 005 


— 


0.17 


0.17 


0.08 


0.11 


— 


— 


0.07 


Significance of the 


















interaction 


0.16 


0.04 


0.00 


0.00 


0.00 


0.42 


0.07 


0.00 



60 

Table 4-12 Influence of peat and coating main effects on P uptake by bermudagrass as a 
function of time after planting phase I 2000. 



Main Effects 




Days after 


planting 








29 


43 


58 


71 


Total 








.2 


















Peat 












With 


0.47at 


0.77a 


0.63a 


0.47a 


2.33a 


Without 


0.26b 


0.54b 


0.42b 


0.32b 


1.54b 


Sand Coating 












Uncoated 


0.06b 


0.41b 


0.36c 


0.29a 


1.12c 


Naturally 


0.50a 


0.55b 


0.52b 


0.45a 


2.02b 


Artificially 


0.53a 


1.01a 


0.69a 


0.44a 


2.67a 



tAny means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple 
Range Test. 



Table 4-13 Influence of peat and coating main effects on water use efficiency phase I 
2000. 









Date 






Main effects 


3 -16 Aug 


17 


Aug - 14 


Sept 


15 Sept -12 Oct 












Peat 




- mg 








With 


2.47at 




2.36a 




3.23a 


Without 


1.38b 




1.76b 




2.24b 


Sand coating 












Uncoated 


1.62b 




1.00c 




2.37a 


Naturally 


2.70a 




2.26b 




2.57a 


Artificially 


1.45b 




2.94a 




3.24a 



tAny means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

J Comparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 



61 
Glasshouse Study: Phase II Year 2001 

In 2001, Phase II was conducted to evaluate the effect of sand grain coatings and 
peat during a period following establishment. Data collected during phase II includes 
clipping production, and P and K leaching and uptake. In addition, data related to 
moisture relations, such as days until wilt and water use efficiency, were also collected. 
Clipping Yield 

The peat treatments only increased clipping yield for the first harvest period. 
While the inclusion of peat did not increase clipping yield during the following three 
harvest periods, peat did increase total clipping yield 16 % when summed over the four 
harvest periods. Brown et al. (2000) also observed an increase in total clipping yield 
production with peat in an established turfgrass system. 

The presence of sand grain coatings increased clipping yield during each of the 
four harvest periods (Table 4-14). Artificially-coated sand produced more clipping yield 
than naturally-coated sand the last three harvest periods. Total clipping yield production 
from the artificially-coated sand was 15 % greater than naturally-coated sand and a 160 % 
increase over that of uncoated sand. It is unclear in previous studies (Brown et al., 2000) 
whether or not an increase in total clipping yield production was observed in the presence 
of sand grain coatings because of the statistical analysis conducted. 
K Leached 

Sand grain coatings influenced K leaching (Table 4-15). Less K leached from 
artificial- and naturally-coated sands than from uncoated sand during the 349 to 371 DAP 
period. Furthermore, at 363 DAP, less K leaching was observed with artificial coatings 



62 
than natural coatings. This same effect was also observed 381 DAP following K 
application at 371 DAP. Because an interaction between coating and peat occurred 375, 
397, and 405 DAP statistical separation of main-effect means was not conducted. The 
interaction at 375 DAP resulted from a 57 % reduction of K leaching in the uncoated 
sand with peat versus the uncoated sand without peat, whereas, since there was little K 
loss in the coated sands, the influence of peat was less pronounced. The beneficial 
influence of peat was not permanent, as evidenced by the 397 and 405 DAP interactions 
in which greater K loss occurred from the uncoated sand with peat treatment relative to 
the uncoated sand and little K leached from the coated sands with or without peat. 

Sand grain coatings reduced total K leached (Table 4-15). In addition, artificial 
coatings reduced K leaching by 35 % versus naturally-coated sand and 62 % relative to 
uncoated sand. Greater than 50 % of the applied K was leached from the uncoated sand 
treatments. Peat did not have an effect on total K leached. 
K Uptake 

Peat improved K uptake 355 DAP (Table 4-17). This improvement did not occur, 
however, as a result of increased K tissue concentration but as a result of increased 
clipping yield from the peat treatments observed only on that date (Table A-3). Peat did 
not increase K uptake during the three final harvest periods, but total K uptake was 
greater with the inclusion of peat (Table 4-17). 

The presence of sand grain coatings increased K uptake relative to uncoated sand 
on all four harvest dates (Table 4-17). In addition, at 370, 381, and 397 DAP K uptake 
from artificially-coated sand was greater than naturally-coated sand by 30, 40, and 25 % 



63 

respectively. Potassium tissue concentrations were greater in naturally-coated sand than 
uncoated sand 355 and 397 DAP (Table A-3). However, differences in K tissue 
concentrations were not observed between naturally-coated sand and uncoated sand 370 
and 381 DAP (Table A-3). Artificially -coated sand had greater K concentrations than 
uncoated sand at every harvest period. Furthermore, artificially-coated sand treatments 
had greater K tissue concentrations than naturally-coated sand 381 and 397 DAP. 

Total K uptake was increased by both coatings and peat (Table 4-17). Artificially- 
coated sand increased total K uptake by 25% over naturally-coated sand and 210% over 
that of uncoated sand. 
P Leached 

Peat reduced P leaching 349 and 356 DAP (Table 4-18), but peat did not affect P 
leaching during any of the remaining four leaching events. 

Phosphorus leaching was influenced by the presence of coatings (Table 4-18). As 
observed for the grow-in phase in 2000, more P was leached from artificially-coated sand 
than from uncoated and naturally-coated sand. The least amount of P loss occurred from 
the naturally-coated sand treatments. Naturally-coated sand reduced P leached by an 
average of 94% relative to uncoated sand during the first six leachate events. 
Comparisons among main effects (peat and sand coating) were not made due to 
interactions between the main effects 397 and 405 DAP (Table 4-19). Increased P 
leaching from uncoated sand with peat relative to uncoated sand without peat, in contrast 
to no effect of peat on P leaching from naturally- and artificially-coated sand, caused the 
interaction among main effects to occur at those times (Table 4-19). 



64 

Less total P was leached from naturally-coated sand than from uncoated and 
artificially-coated sand. Naturally-coated sand reduced total P leached by 92 and 98% 
relative to uncoated and artificially-coated sand. 

As observed in Phase I, peat enhanced total P loss. Treatments with peat lost 37 
% more total P than treatments without peat. 
P Uptake 

Peat did not affect P uptake (Table 4-20), nor did it affect P tissue concentration 
(Appendix). In Phase I, peat increased total P uptake (Table 4-12), however, peat did not 
affect total P uptake in Phase II (Table 4-20). 

The presence of sand grain coatings increased P uptake relative to uncoated sand 
(Table 4-20). At all harvest periods, P uptake was greatest from the artificially-coated 
sand treatments. At 355, 370, and 397 DAP increased P uptake from artificially-coated 
sand can be attributed to not only increased clipping yield from the artificially-coated 
sand treatments but also to increased P tissue concentrations (Table A-4). Only at 381 
DAP were artificially-coated and uncoated P tissue concentrations the same. In contrast, 
increased P uptake from naturally-coated sand relative to uncoated sand can only be 
attributed to greater clipping production from naturally-coated sand treatments, since 
naturally-coated sand P tissue concentrations were less than those of uncoated sand 
(Table A-4). This observation was also made in phase I (Table 4-12, A-2). 

While Brown et al. (2000) in an established turfgrass study did not observe an 
increase in P uptake from naturally-coated sand, in the current established turfgrass study, 



65 
total P uptake was increased by the presence of sand grain coatings. Artificially-coated 
sand increased total P uptake by 67 and 195 % relative to naturally-coated and uncoated 
sand. 
Days Until Wilt 

Because of greater available water (Table 4-2), the presence of sand grain coatings 
and peat increased the number of days between cessation of irrigation and wilting (Table 
4-21). There was no difference between artificially- and naturally-coated sand. The 
presence of peat in the root zone mix delayed wilting symptoms of drought stress four 
days beyond those treatments without peat. 
Water Use Efficiency 

Overall water use efficiency decreased relative to Phase I 2000 values (Table 4- 
22). The relative decrease in water use efficiency observed in Phase II 2001 can likely be 
attributed to the method of evaluation in which applications of water ceased, thereby 
creating moisture stressed conditions which in turn reduced overall dry matter production. 

Regardless of experimental technique, similar trends were observed in Phase II 
2001 . Comparisons among main effects (peat and sand coating) were not made due to 
interactions between main effects (Table 4-22). Peat increased water use efficiency of 
uncoated sand, but did not influence water use efficiency of artificially- and naturally- 
coated sand. The presence of sand grain coatings increased water use efficiency relative 
to uncoated sand. 



66 
Summary: Phase II 

The purpose of Phase II was to continue the evaluation of sand grain coatings and 
peat and make observations relative to changes in root zone performance during a period 
of well-established actively growing turfgrass. 

In Phase II, the presence of sand grain coatings impacted measures of root zone 
performance. Sand grain coatings increased clipping production as was previously 
observed in Phase I. As in Phase I, sand grain coatings reduced K leaching and increased 
K uptake. Both artificially- and naturally-coated sand increased tissue K concentrations. 
Naturally-coated sand, however, was less consistent, relative to uncoated sand, in 
increasing tissue K concentrations in Phase II as compared to Phase I. As observed in 
Phase I, naturally-coated sand reduced P leached. The emathlite clay and polymer matrix 
associated with artificially-coated sand coatings continued to supply leachable P from 
artificially-coated sand treatments. Sand grain coatings continued to increase P uptake as 
observed in Phase I. It should be noted, however, that the increase in P uptake associated 
with naturally-coated sand can only be attributed to increased clipping production since 
tissue P concentrations were less than or equal to that of uncoated sand. Sand grain 
coatings increased the number of days between cessation of irrigation and wilting. 
Finally, sand grain coatings clearly increased water use efficiency. 

The influence of peat in Phase II remained similar to that of Phase I. Peat only 
increased clipping production in a statistically-significant manner early in the data 
collection period. Peat did, however, increase total clipping production in Phase II, as 
was observed in Phase I. Peat continued to improve the K retention characteristics of 



67 
uncoated sand as was demonstrated by the reduction in K leaching, relative to uncoated 
sand without peat, in those leaching events following K fertilization. The beneficial 
influence of peat on K uptake appears to have diminished, with peat only increasing total 
K uptake. In Phase I peat increased K. uptake at all sampling dates, however, no 
measurable difference in K uptake was observed in the individual sampling periods. In 
phase I, peat did not consistently increase tissue K concentration, and at no time in Phase 
II did peat increase tissue K concentration. Therefore, any increase in K fertilization 
efficiency can only be related to increased dry matter production. Peat continued to 
increase P leached. Unlike Phase I, in Phase II peat did not increase tissue P 
concentration and overall P uptake. Peat increased the number of days between cessation 
of irrigation and wilting. Finally, peat improved the water use efficiency of uncoated 
sand to that of the coated sands. 



I 






68 



Table 4-14 Influence of peat and coating main effects on clipping production of 
bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase II 2001. 







Days after 


planting 






Main effects 


355 


370 


381 


397 


Total 








-2 


















Peat 












With 


190at 


155a 


86a 


118a 


501a 


Without 


142b 


143a 


80a 


95a 


430b 


Sand coating 










- 


Uncoated 


78b 


74c 


46c 


40c 


238c 


Naturally 


206a 


fcttf7b 


91b 


75b 


538b 


Artificially 


215a 


207a 


112a 


86a 


620a 



tAny means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



t 



69 
Table 4-15 Influence of peat and coating main effects on K leached as a function of time 



Main effects 


349 356 


363 


Days after planting 










371 375 381 


397 


405 


Total 












Peat 














With 


OJlat 1.26b 


1.21a 


0.87a 0.74$ 0.39a 


0.96J 


0.57J 


7.44a 


Without 


1.21a 1.95a 


1.24a 


0.67b 1.27 0.44a 


0.57 


0.32 


8.46a 


Sand coating 














Uncoated 


1.70a 2.40a 


1.85a 


1.23a 1.95$ 1.70a 


1.08 J 


0.71J 


12.6a 


Naturally 


0.37b 1.37b 


1.23b 


0.57b 0.48 1.23b 


0.82 


0.35 


6.43b 


Artificially 


0.80b 1.05b 


0.58c 


0.50b 0.59 0.58c 


0.39 


0.28 


4.79b 



tAny means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

^Comparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 

Table 4-16 An analysis of the peat and coating interaction on K leached as a function of 

time after planting, for K fertilization 343 and 371 days after planting 2001. 

Days after planting 

349 356 363 371 375 381 397 405 



Interaction means 
Coating Peat 










•2 














- - g III 










Uncoated 


With 


1.19 


1.81 


2.18 


1.45 


1.18 


1.79 


1.53 


1.01 


Uncoated 


Without 


2.22 


2.99 


1.51 


1.01 


2.72 


1.61 


0.64 


0.40 


Naturally 


With 


0.38 


1.14 


0.94 


0.70 


0.51 


0.98 


0.97 


0.42 


Naturally 


Without 


0.36 


1.59 


1.52 


0.44 


0.46 


1.48 


0.67 


0.28 


Artificially 


With 


0.55 


0.84 


0.51 


0.44 


0.55 


0.61 


0.37 


0.27 


Artificially 


Without 


1.06 


1.27 


0.67 


0.56 


0.64 


0.56 


0.41 


0.29 


1^SD 005 




— 


— 


— 


0.31 


0.46 


— 


0.45 


0.51 


Significance 


of the 


















Peat X Coating interaction 


0.33 


0.30 


0.08 


0.05 


0.00 


0.21 


0.02 


0.04 



70 

Table 4-17 Influence of peat and coating main effects on K uptake by bermudagrass as a 

function of time after planting phase II 2001. 



Main effects 




Days after 


planting 








355 


370 


381 


397 


Total 








-2 












gm ■ 




Peat 












With 


3.53at 


2.94a 


1.62a 


1.37a 


9.46a 


Without 


2.66b 


2.69a 


1.44a 


1.23a 


8.03b 


Sand coating 












Uncoated 


1.24b 


1.26c 


0.79c 


0.68c 


3.97c 


Naturally 


3.78a 


3.12b 


1.59b 


1.43b 


9.93b 


Artificially 


4.26a 


4.06a 


2.22a 


1.79a 


12.33a 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



71 



Table 4-18 Influence of peat and coating main effects on P leached as a function of time 
after planting for fertilization applied 343 and 371 days after planting phase II 2001. 

Main effects Days after planting 



349 356 363 371 375 381 397 405 Total 





























g m - - 










Peat 


















With 


0.56bt 0.61b 


0.68a 


0.67a 


0.77a 


0.41a 


0.46$ 


0.40$ 


2.31a 


Without 


0.96a 0.94a 


0.68a 


0.74a 


0.75a 


0.41a 


0.35 


0.32 


1.46b 


Sand Coating 


















Uncoated 


0.57b 0.58b 


0.49b 


0.41b 


0.48b 


0.36b 


0.32$ 


0.26$ 


3.48b 


Naturally 


0.02c 0.04c 


0.03c 


0.04c 


0.03c 


0.03c 


0.04 


0.03 


0.26c 


Artificially 


1.69a 1.70a 


1.51a 


1.67a 


1.77a 


0.86a 


0.85 


0.79 


10.85a 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple 
Range Test. 

$Comparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 

Table 4-19 An analysis of the peat and coating interaction on P leached as a function of 
time after planting for fertilization applied 343 and 371 days after planting, phase II 2001 . 

Main effects Days after planting 

349 356 363 371 375 381 397 405 



Interaction means 
Coating Peat 










.-2 














g 111 








Uncoated 


With 


0.22 


0.38 


0.53 


0.47 


0.43 


0.37 


0.42 


0.34 


Uncoated 


Without 


0.92 


0.79 


0.46 


0.35 


0.54 


0.35 


0.22 


0.18 


Naturally 


With 


0.02 


0.04 


0.04 


0.04 


0.04 


0.03 


0.04 


0.04 


Naturally 


Without 


0.02 


0.03 


0.03 


0.03 


0.03 


0.03 


0.04 


0.03 


Artificially 


With 


1.43 


1.41 


1.46 


1.51 


1.84 


0.84 


0.91 


0.82 


Artificially 


Without 


1.95 


2.00 


1.57 


1.83 


1.70 


0.87 


0.80 


0.76 


LSD 005 
















0.11 


0.09 


Significance of the 


















Peat X Coating interaction 


0.16 


0.11 


0.81 


0.19 


0.31 


0.97 


0.04 


0.04 



72 

Table 4-20 Influence of peat and coating main effects on P uptake by bermudagrass as a 
function of time after planting phase II 2001. 



Main effects 




Days after 


planting 








355 


370 


381 


397 


Total 








.2 






Peat 












With 


l.lOat 


0.86a 


0.44a 


0.38a 


2.79a 


Without 


0.86a 


0.83a 


0.40a 


0.37a 


2.47a 


Sand coating 












Uncoated 


0.48c 


0.42c 


0.26c 


0.22c 


1.38c 


Naturally 


0.95b 


0.76b 


0.36b 


0.36b 


2.44b 


Artificially 


1.52a 


1.36a 


0.65a 


0.54a 


4.07a 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



73 



Table 4-21 Influence of peat and coating main effects on the number of days until wilt 
phase II 2001. 



Main effects Days until wilt 

Peat 

With 15at 

Without 1 lb 

Sand coating 

Uncoated 10b 

Naturally 15a 

Artificially 14a 

t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test 



Table 4-22 Influence of coating and peat on water use efficiency phase II 2001, 

Coating Peat Water use efficiency 

- mg tissue ml water" 1 - 

0.82 

0.37 

0.77 

0.80 

0.84 

1.17 

0.35 

0.01 



Uncoated 


With 


Uncoated 


Without 


Naturally-coated 


With 


Naturally-coated 


Without 


Artificially-coated 


With 


Artificially-coated 


Without 


^D 05 




Significance of the 




Peat X Coating interaction 



74 
Glasshouse Studv: Phase HI Year 2002 

Phase III began two years following Phase I 2000 (establishment) and one year 
after Phase II 2001 (maintenance) in order to further evaluate the long-term effects of 
sand grain coating and peat on root zone behavior. The same variables were investigated 
in Phase III 2002 as in Phase II 2001 . 
Clipping Production 

In 2002, peat and coating influenced clipping production. Since an interaction 
between peat and sand coating occurred 699 DAP, comparisons among the main effects 
are not made (Table 4-23). The interaction resulted because peat increased clipping 
production 41% for the uncoated sand, but did not affect production in naturally- and 
artificially-coated sand (Table 4-24). In addition, the presence of peat increased clipping 
production of uncoated sand to a quantity equal to that of artificially-coated sand with or 
without peat. Artificially-coated sand increased clipping production 10% over naturally- 
coated sand and 27% over uncoated sand 715 DAP. There was no effect of peat and no 
difference between uncoated and naturally-coated sand 715 DAP. Because the same 
interaction observed 699 DAP occurred 729 DAP, comparisons among the main effects 
are not made. Again, peat increased clipping production 34 % for the uncoated sand and 
did not affect naturally- and artificially-coated sand. Peat and coating affected clipping • 
production 746 DAP. Peat increased clipping production 27%. Artificially-coated sand 
also increased clipping production. As observed 715 DAP, there was no difference 
between uncoated and naturally-coated sand 746 DAP. 



75 
In Phase I and Phase II, peat clearly increased clipping production. However, in 
Phase III the effect of peat on clipping production was less evident. For total clipping 
production, comparisons among main effects (peat and sand coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. As observed on sampling dates 699 and 729 DAP, 
peat increased total clipping production 37% for the uncoated sand and did not affect that 
of naturally- and artificially-coated sand. Consequently, at this point in the study, only 
uncoated sand was benefitting from peat in terms of clipping production. 
K Leached 

Peat and coating did not affect K leaching as much as in the establishment (Phase 
I) and first maintenance period (Phase II) (Table 4-25). Potassium was applied 638 DAP 
with four leaching events following application. There was no effect of peat or coating 
on K leached 692, 699, 704, and 714 DAP (Table 4-25). A lack of significance may have 
occurred because of high variability associated with the data over that period of time 
(Table 4-26). Over a similar period early in Phase II, sand grain coatings decreased K 
leaching (Table 4-16). When K was reapplied 715 DAP an effect of coating on K leached 
was observed 718 DAP with less K leached from artificially-coated sand than uncoated 
and naturally-coated sand. During this period of data collection (715-761 DAP), less 
variability in the data were observed (Table 4-26). There was no difference between 
uncoated sand naturally-coated sand 718 DAP. An interaction between peat and coating 
was observed 727 and 739 DAP. Peat decreased K leaching from uncoated sand 62% 
727 DAP and 68% 739 DAP. Peat did not affect K leached from naturally- and 
artificially-coated sand 727 and 739 DAP. Less K leached from naturally-coated sand 



76 
without peat than uncoated sand without peat 727 and 739 DAP demonstrating the ability 
of natural sand grain coatings to continue reducing K leaching two years after 
establishment. Both natural and artificial coatings reduced K leached 761 DAP. To this 
point, the ability of sand grain coatings to reduce K leached endured. 

In Phase I (Table 4-7) and Phase II (Table 4-15), naturally- and artificially-coated 
sand reduced total K leached. For total K leached in Phase HI, comparisons among main 
effects were not made due to interactions between the main effects peat and sand coating. 
The interaction occurred because peat reduced total K leached from uncoated sand, but 
did not affect total K leached from naturally- and artificially-coated sand (Table 4-25, 4- 
26). In addition, peat reduced total K leached from uncoated sand to levels similar to 
naturally- and artificially-coated sand with and without peat. However, in the absence of 
peat, naturally- and artificially-coated sand reduced total K leached by 58 % and 66 % 
relative to that of uncoated sand without peat (Table 4-26). 
K Uptake 

The presence of sand grain coatings increased K uptake throughout phase III 
(Table 4-27, 4-28). Artificially- and naturally-coated sand increased K uptake relative to 
uncoated sand 699 DAP. Artificially- and naturally-coated sand did not, however, 
increase K tissue concentration (Table A-5). There was no difference between 
artificially- and naturally-coated sand (Table A-5). During Phase I and Phase II, the 
presence of natural and artificial coatings increased tissue K concentration (Table A-l, A- 
3). 



77 
At 715 DAP, artificially- and naturally-coated sand increased K uptake over that 
of uncoated sand. Again, there was no difference between artificially- and naturally sand, 
and no difference in K tissue concentration among the sand types (Table A-5, A-6). A 
peat by coating interaction was detected 729 DAP (Table 4-28). The interaction was the 
result of increased K uptake by uncoated sand in the presence of peat whereas peat did 
not improve K uptake from artificially- and naturally-coated sand. Artificially- and 
naturally-coated sand increased K uptake over that of uncoated sand 746 DAP. In 
addition, artificially -coated sand had greater K tissue concentration than uncoated sand 
but not naturally-coated sand (Table A-5). There was no difference in K tissue 
concentration between naturally-coated and uncoated sand (Table A-5). 

Sand grain coatings increased total K uptake (Table 4-27). Artificially-coated 
sand increased total K uptake 41% over that of uncoated sand. There was no difference 
between artificially- and naturally-coated sand. 

The effect of peat on K uptake was inconsistent (Table 4-27). Peat did not 
improve K uptake 699 DAP. Peat did, however, increase K uptake 715 DAP. In 
addition, peat increased K tissue concentration 715 DAP (Table A-5). Because of an 
interaction 729 DAP there was no comparison of main effects. The interaction was the 
result of positive influence of peat on K uptake from uncoated sand (Table 4-28). The 
presence of peat did not influence K uptake from artificially- and naturally-coated sand. 
At 746 DAP peat increased K uptake. Unlike 715 DAP, there was no increase in K 
concentration in the presence of peat 746 DAP. Peat increased total K uptake 16% (4- 
27). . 



78 
P Leached 

In Phase III, sand grain coating influenced P leaching (Table 4-29). As in the 
earlier study periods, greater quantities of P leached from artificially-coated sand than 
from uncoated and naturally-coated sand throughout 2002. There was no difference 
between uncoated and naturally-coated sand 692 and 699 DAP. The lack of significance 
between uncoated and naturally-coated sand 692 and 699 DAP was likely due to a high 
degree of variability associated with the data (Table 4-29) . The variability may be due to 
difficulty in measuring the smaller quantities of P leached in Phase III. Less P, however, 
did leach from naturally-coated sand than uncoated sand 704 DAP. There was no 
difference between uncoated and naturally-coated sand 714 DAP, presumably because 
most mobile P applied at 683 DAP had leached through the system. 

Phosphorus was reapplied 715 DAP and similar differences among coatings 
which had occurred in 2000 and 2001 repeated themselves the remaining four leaching 
events. The interaction occurring 739 DAP resulted from 63 % less P leached from 
uncoated sand with peat than uncoated sand without peat, but no influence of peat on P 
leached from naturally- and artificially-coated sand. Peat did not affect P leached through 
the first six leaching events of 2002. Peat did, however, reduce P leached 761 DAP. In 
contrast, at no time did peat reduce P leached during Phase I and Phase II. Moreover, 
peat increased P leached in Phase 131% and Phase II 31%. This change in the P leaching 
characteristics associated with peat may signal a depletion of P available for 
mineralization and an end to peat as a source of leachable P. 



79 
The potential for peat to now serve as a direct source for P appears minimal. 
Rock et al. (1984) concluded in laboratory studies that peat was incapable of removing 
substantial P. Peats low in Al and Fe exhibit low P retention capabilities (Nichols and 
Boelter, 1982). 

Peat, however, may now be serving as an indirect source of P removal by 
increasing the microbial population of those sands containing peat. Studies have shown 
that greater bacterial populations exist in sand peat mixtures versus sand only (USGA, 
2000). Phosphorus immobilization in soils by microbes can occur when organic residues 
low in P but high in carbon and other nutrients exist (Brady and Weil, 2000). Phosphorus 
removal associated with peat is attributed to microbial assimilation (Nichols and Boelter, 
1982). Rannikko and Hartikainen (1981) attributed their 9% removal of P to microbial 
immobilization in sphagnum peat. 

Only sand grain coating affected total P leached in 2002. Naturally-coated sand 
reduced total P leached 92% relative to uncoated sand and 97% relative to artificially- 
coated sand. In Phase I and Phase II peat increased total P leached. For the first time, 
during Phase III, peat did not affect total P leached, perhaps for reason stated above. 
P Uptake 

In general, P uptake in Phase III was less than that of Phase II. While dry matter 
production did not dramatically decrease, tissue P concentration generally decreased for 
both peat and coating in 2002 (Table A-7). 

The effect of sand grain coatings on P uptake varied (Table 4-30). The presence 
of sand grain coatings did not increase P uptake until 715 DAP. However, only 



80 
artificially-coated sand increased P uptake 715 DAP. There was no difference between 
naturally-coated and uncoated sand. There was no difference in P tissue concentration 
among the sand types (Table a-7). A comparison of main effects was not conducted 729 
DAP because of an interaction (Table 4-31). The interaction occurred because uncoated 
sand with peat had more P uptake than uncoated sand without peat, whereas peat did not 
influence P uptake from artificially- and naturally-coated sand. Artificially-coated sand 
without peat did improve P uptake relative to uncoated sand without peat 729 DAP. 
Artificially-coated sand also increased P uptake over that of uncoated sand 746 DAP. 
There was no difference between uncoated and naturally-coated sand 746 DAP. There 
was no difference in P tissue concentrations 746 DAP (Table A-7). 

Total P uptake was only increased by artificially-coated sand (Table 4-30). 
Artificially-coated sand increased total P uptake 35% relative uncoated and 20% relative 
to naturally-coated sand. In Phase II, P uptake from naturally-coated sand was greater 
than that of uncoated sand. However, in Phase III there was no difference in total P 
uptake between uncoated and naturally-coated sand and no difference tissue P 
concentration (Table A-7). 

Peat had a minimal effects on P uptake (Table 4-30). An increase in P uptake due 
to the presence of peat was not detected at individual harvest dates. Furthermore, peat did 
not increase tissue P concentration (Table A-7). 



81 

Peat only influenced uncoated sand. A peat by coating interaction occurred at 729 
DAP in which peat improved P uptake by bermudagrass in uncoated sand (Table 4-31). 
Furthermore, the addition of peat to uncoated sand improved P uptake from uncoated 
sand to that of artificially- and naturally-coated sand with or without peat. 

Total P uptake was improved by peat (Table 4-30). Peat had not improved total P 
uptake in Phase II. 
Days Until Wilt and Water Use Efficiency 

In Phase III, the number of days to wilt and water use efficiency increased relative 
to Phase II. Both trials were conducted during the same time of year. Perhaps a more 
mature turf with a greater accumulation of thatch, adding to moisture retention, and root 
mass was better able to delay wilt and more efficiently use moisture. 

Peat and artificially-coated sand increased the number of days between cessation 
of irrigation and wilting (Table 4-32). While artificially-coated sand did delay wilt, peat 
appeared to have a greater effect on wilt. Peat delayed wilt by an average of five days 
whereas artificially-coated sand reduced time to wilt by only two. Unlike in 2001 , 
naturally-coated sand was not effective in delaying wilting. 

Sand grain coating increased water use efficiency. Artificially- and naturally- 
coated sand had greater water use efficiency than uncoated sand. There was no detectable 
difference in water use efficiency in treatments with and without peat in 2002. In phase 
II, peat had only increased the water use efficiency of uncoated sand (Table 4-21). 



82 
Cation Exchange Capacity 

The cation exchange capacity of root-zone materials, determined at the conclusion 
of the glasshouse study, was affected by the coating and peat variables (Table 4-33). 
The CEC of coated sands were greater than uncoated sand. Of the coated sands, CEC of 
artificially-coated sand was greater than naturally-coated sand. The incorporation of peat 
increased CEC for uncoated and naturally-coated sand. Interestingly, the CEC of 
artificially-coated sand with peat was less than that of artificially-coated sand without 
peat. 

Because uncoated and coated sand with peat mixtures were not measured prior to 
Phase I comparisons in CEC can only be made on the uncoated and coated sands without 
peat. 

The CEC of uncoated sand and coated sands generally changed little (Table 4-33) 
relative to CEC values determined prior to Phase I (Table 4-3). Despite three years of 
potential organic matter addition from thatch and root growth, the CEC of uncoated sand 
did not increase from 0.0 cmol c kg"'. The CEC of naturally-coated sand generally 
increased, but the increase could simply be the result of variation during CEC 
determination. The CEC of artificially-coated sand generally decreased relative to Phase 
I perhaps because of clay loss or experimental error. 

Selected Chemical/Physical Properties of Root-Zone Materials upon Completion of Phase 
III 

An interaction of coating and peat occurred for pH (Table 4-34). The interaction 
occurred because the presence of peat only decreased the pH of uncoated sand and not 



83 
that of naturally- and artificially -coated sand (Table 4-35). Sphagnum peat, an acidic peat 
source, may have had less impact on naturally- and artificially-coated sand because of 
their already low pH status. In addition, poorly buffered uncoated sand is perhaps more 
susceptible to the influence of amendment properties. 

An interaction of coating and peat occurred with acetic acid-extractable P (Pa) 
(Table 4-34). Artificially-coated sand both with and without peat had greater Pa than 
uncoated and naturally-coated sand with and without peat (Table 4-35). Brown et al. 
(2000) observed an increase in Mehlich I extractable P from naturally-coated sand 
relative to uncoated sand in both a grow-in study and an established study. A difference, 
however, could not be detected between uncoated and naturally-coated sand when data 
where analyzed with artificially-coated sand included in the analysis. When analyzed 
without artificially-coated sand, a difference between naturally-coated and uncoated sand 
was detected (P>0.0005). Using this method of data analysis, naturally-coated sand 
increased soil-test Pa. 

The presence of sand grain coatings increased water soluble P (Pw)(Table 4-34 4- 
35). Artificially-coated sand had greater Pw at the end of the study than naturally-coated 
sand. In addition, there was greater Pw from naturally-coated than uncoated sand. 

Peat influenced the quantity of Pw (Table 4-34). Sand with peat had more Pw 
than sand without peat. This finding helps to support the observation that peat increases 
P leached (Table 4-10, 4-18). 

The presence of sand grain coatings increased extractable K (Table 4-34). 
Artificially-coated sand had the highest extractable K. Naturally-coated sand had greater 



84 
extractable K than uncoated sand. Peat did not increase extractable K content (Table 4- 
34). Along with K leached data (4-7, 4-15, 4-25) these finding suggest that CEC 
associated with sand grain coatings are more influential than peat with regard to K 
retention. 

Summary: Phase HI 

The influence of sand grain coatings continued in 2002. Sand grain coatings 
improved clipping production as was observed in Phases I and II. In Phase III, sand grain 
coatings continued to reduce K leached, but the ability of the coatings to reduce K 
leaching appears to have diminished. Naturally-coated sand continued to reduce P 
leaching in comparison to uncoated sand, while more P continued to leach from 
artificially-coated sand. While naturally-coated sand decreased P leaching, it did not 
increase P uptake. As in Phase II, artificially-coated sand increased the number of days 
between cessation of irrigation and wilting. Naturally-coated sand did not decrease 
wilting potential with respect to uncoated sand. Sand grain coatings did increase water 
use efficiency as previously observed in phases I and II. The presence of sand grain 
coatings increased CEC to levels greater than that of uncoated sand. Artificially-coated 
sand had greater soil-test K, Pa, and Pw than naturally-coated and uncoated sand. 
Naturally-coated sand had greater soil-test K, Pa, and Pw than uncoated sand. 

Peat continued to exhibit some of the same characteristics demonstrated in Phases 
I and II. Peat only improved dry matter production of uncoated sand in Phase III. In 
addition, peat only reduced K leached from uncoated sand. Peat began to show signs of 
improved P retention during the later stages of Phase III, perhaps due to less available P 



85 
for mineralization and increased P assimilation by the microbial biomass. As in Phase II, 
peat increased the number of days between cessation of irrigation and wilting. An 
increase in water use efficiency was not detected during Phase III. Peat increased the 
CEC of uncoated and naturally-coated sand, however, the presence of peat decreased the 
CEC of artificially-coated sand. Peat only decreased soil-test pH of uncoated sand. Peat 
increased Pw, and had no effect on soil K. 



86 



Table 4-23 Influence of peat and coating main effects on clipping production of 
bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase HI 2002. 







Days after 


planting 






Main effects 


699 


715 


729 


746 


Total 








.2 


















Peat 












With 


149t 


137aJ 


79t 


123a 


489t 


Without 


140 


126a 


74 


97b 


438 


Sand coating 












Uncoated 


127 


115b 


66 


88b 


397 


Naturally 


146 


133ab 


80 


107b 


465 


Artificially 


161 


146a 


85 


135a 


527 



tComparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 

JAny means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-24 An analysis of the peat and coating interaction on clipping production of 
bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase HI 2002. 



Days after planting 


Main effects 




699 


715 




729 


746 


Total 


Interaction N/f<=»;ar>c 








-2 






Coating 


Peat 






- - g m 








Uncoated 


With 


149 


129 




76 


105 


459 


Uncoated 


Without 


106 


102 




57 


71 


336 


Naturally 


With 


141 


140 




82 


123 


487 


Naturally 


Without 


150 


126 




77 


90 


444 


Artificially 


With 


157 


142 




80 


142 


521 


Artificially 


Without 


165 


150 




90 


129 


534 


kkDgoj 




20 


— 




12 


— 


57 


Significance 


of the 














Peat X Coating Interaction 


0.00 


0.16 




0.01 


0.52 


0.01 



87 

Table 4-25 Influence of peat and coating main effects on K leached as a function of time 
after planting for fertilization applied 682, 715, and 747 days after planting phase III 
2002. 



Main effects 






Days after planting 










692 699 


704 


714 718 727 


739 


761 


Total 
















Peat 














With 


0.69at 0.17a 


0.15a 


0.10a 0.18a 0.1 1% 


0.11} 


0.51a 


1.76} 


Without 


0.31a 0.18a 


0.11a 


0.06a 0.20a 0.27 


0.18 


0.51a 


2.21 


Sand Coating 














Uncoated 


0.38a 0.20a 


0.14a 


0.07a 0.27a 0.38J 


0.78J 


0.72a 


2.95 


Naturally 


0.20a 0.14a 


0.12a 


0.10a 0.20a 0.20 


0.34 


0.40b 


1.71 


Artificially 


0.21a 0.18a 


0.12a 


0.06a 0.11b 0.08 


0.12 


0.40b 


1.30 



tAny means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple 
Range Test. 

} Comparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 



Table 4-26 An analysis of the peat and coating interaction on K leached as a function of 
time after planting for fertilization applied 682, 715, and 747 days after planting phase III 
2002. 



Main effects 






Days 


after planting 












692 


699 


704 


714 


718 


727 


739 


761 


Total 


Interaction means 
Coating Peat 










g m' 2 - ■ 


























Uncoated With 


0.39 


0.19 


0.15 


0.07 


0.20 


0.21 


0.38 


0.53 


2.13 


Uncoated Without 


0.38 


0.22 


0.12 


0.06 


0.36 


0.55 


1.18 


0.92 


3.77 


Naturally With 


0.13 


0.16 


0.16 


0.14 


0.24 


0.21 


0.29 


0.53 


1.86 


Naturally Without 


0.28 


0.13 


0.08 


0.05 


0.16 


0.19 


0.39 


0.27 


1.56 


Artificially With 


0.15 


0.17 


0.13 


0.06 


0.11 


0.08 


0.12 


0.47 


1.30 


Artificially Without 


0.27 


0.19 


0.12 


0.08 


0.11 


0.08 


0.12 


0.33 


1.30 


I^Dqoj 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


0.16 


0.37 


— 


0.96 


C.V. (%) 


80 


58 


63 


78 


43 


47 


59 


52 


32 


Significance of the 




















interaction 


0.74 


0.83 


0.67 


0.25 


0.07 


0.01 


0.01 


0.07 


0.02 



88 

Table 4-27 Influence of peat and coating main effects on K uptake by bermudagrass as a 
function of time after planting phase HI 2002. 



Main effects 




Days after 


planting 








699 


715 


729 


746 


Total 














Peat 






g III ~ ~ 




With 


1.76at 


2.25a 


1.53J 


2.25a 


7.48a 


Without 


1.59a 


1.87b 


1.35 


1.87b 


6.47b 


Sand coating 












Uncoated 


1.42b 


1.66b 


1.28 


1.32c 


5.68b 


Naturally 


1.76a 


2.16a 


1.50 


1.81b 


7.24a 


Artificially 


1.83a 


2.36a 


1.55 


2.26a 


8.00a 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

{Comparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 



Table 4-28 Interaction of coating 


and 


peat or 


i K uptake by bermudagrass phase 


III 2002. 


Coating 


Peat 




Days 


after planting 












729 









-gm" 2 


Uncoated 


with 


1.56 


Uncoated 


without 


0.99 


Naturally-coated 


with 


1.61 


Naturally-coated 


without 


1.39 


Artificially-coated 


with 


1.43 


Artificially-coated 


without 


1.67 


kkDoo5 




0.40 


Significance of the 






Peat X Coating interaction 


0.02 



89 

Table 4-29 Influence of peat and coating main effects on P leached as a function of time 
after planting for fertilization applied 682, 715, and 747 days after planting phase III 
2002. 



Main effects 








Days after planting 










692 


699 


704 


714 718 


727 


739 


761 


Total 




















Peat 
With 
Without 

Sand Coating 
Uncoated 
Naturally 
Artificially 

C.V. (%) 


0.12at 0.12a 
0.13a 0.14a 

0.10b 0.08b 

0.01b 0.01b 

0.26a 0.31a 

85 94 


0.14a 
0.13a 

0.10b 
0.01c 
0.31a 
66 


0.12a 0.14a 
0.13a 0.16a 

0.06b 0.12b 
0.01b 0.01c 
0.29a 0.32a 
55 46 


0.09a 
0.13a 

0.12b 
0.01c 
0.21a 
50 


0.11J 
0.18 

0.1 9 J 
0.01 
0.24 
30 


0.11b 
0.19a 

0.15b 
0.01c 
0.30a 

55 


0.95a 
1.20a 

0.92b 
0.07c 
2.24a 
55 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple 
Range Test. 

^Comparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 



90 

Table 4-30 Influence of peat and coating main effects on P uptake by bermudagrass as a 
function of time after planting phase HI 2002. 



Main effects 




Days after 


planting 








699 


715 


729 


746 


Total 








jy 


















Peat 












With 


0.36at 


0.44a 


0.31 J 


0.44a 


1.55a 


Without 


0.34a 


0.39a 


0.28 


0.39a 


1.39b 


Sand coating 












Uncoated 


0.32a 


0.35b 


0.27 


0.35b 


1.27b 


Naturally 


0.32a 


0.42ab 


0.29 


0.42ab 


1.43b 


Artificially 


0.38a 


0.47a 


0.33 


0.47a 


1.71a 



tAny means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

^Comparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 



Table 4-31 


Interaction of coating 


and 


peat on P uptake by bermudagrass 


: phase 


III 2002. 


Coating 


Peat 




Days 


after planting 






729 







-gm" 2 


Uncoated 


with 


0.32 


Uncoated 


without 


0.22 


Naturally-coated 


with 


0.31 


Naturally-coated 


without 


0.27 


Artificially-coated 


with 


0.31 


Artificially-coated 


without 


0.36 


LSD 00J 




0.07 


Significance of the 






Peat X Coating interaction 


0.02 



91 



Table 4-32 Influence of peat and coating main effects on the number of days until 
wilting and water use efficiency 779 days after planting phase HI 2002. 



Main effects 


Days until wilt 


Water Use Efficiency 






- mg tissue ml water" 1 - 


Peat 






With 


19at 


1.65a 


Without 


14b 


1.43a 


Sand coating 






Uncoated 


16b 


1.22b 


Naturally 


16b 


1.62a 


Artificially 


18a 


1.77a 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

Table 4-33 Effect of coating and peat on cation exchange capacity at the completion of 
glasshouse study phase HI 2002. 

Main Effects Cation Exchange Capacity 



Coating 


Peat 


cmol c kg" 1 


Uncoated 


With 


1.4 


Uncoated 


Without 


0.0 


Naturally 


With 


6.5 


Naturally 


Without 


4.8 


Artificially 


With 


6.5 


Artificially 


Without 


9.8 


"SDo.03 




0.2 


Significance 


of the 




Peat X Coating interaction 


<0.00 



92 



Main Effects 


PH 


Pa 


Pw 


K 






4.3t 
5.0 

4.9 
4.3 
4.6 




. . m P T -' 


14.9a 
18.6a 

5.8c 
12.3b 
32.0a 




Peat 
With 
Without 

Sand Coating 
Uncoated 
Naturally 
Artificially 


87.9t 
129.4 

7.1 
44.8 

274.2 


12.1a 
8.7b 

3.3cJ 
8.7b 
19.2a 





tComparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 

JAny means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple 
Range Test. 



Table 4-35 Interaction of coating and peat on selected chemical properties at the 
completion of glasshouse study phase HI 2002. 



Main Effects 



J*L 



Pa 



Pw 



K 



Coating 


Peat 




Uncoated 


With 


4.3 


Uncoated 


Without 


5.5 


Naturally 


With 


4.1 


Naturally 


Without 


4.5 


Artificially 


With 


4.4 


Artificially 


Without 


4.8 


"SDoqj 




0.4 



Significance of the 

Peat X Coating interaction 



0.02 





---mgL" -- 




6.7 


4.6 


5.2 


7.5 


2.1 


6.5 


42.9 


12.0 


12.6 


46.6 


5.3 


12.0 


214.2 


19.8 


26.8 


334.1 


18.6 


37.1 


71.9 


— 


— 



0.03 



0.14 



0.06 



93 
Artificiallv-Coated Sand: A Rate Study 

The previous glasshouse work, which for the artificially-coated treatment was 
conducted with 100% of root zone media being a coated sand demonstrated that the 
coated sand enhanced turfgrass growth and soil properties, relative to uncoated sand. The 
amendment rate study was conducted to identify a rate (less than 100 %) at which 
artificially-coated sand could be incorporated into a root zone and remain effective. Clay- 
coated sand rate was studied both with and without added peat (100 ml L-l). 

An effect of the artificially-coated sand amendment was observed on all dates. In 
addition, an effect was observed at all rates of artificially-coated sand. The magnitude of 
improvement, however, varied with and without the presence of peat. 

In the absence of peat, inclusion of artificially-coated sand greatly improved 
bermudagrass establishment (Fig 4-2). Measurable increases in establishment rate were 
already distinguishable at 10 DAP. The established turf area at 10 DAP of uncoated sand 
amended with artificially-coated sand was approximately 10 - 15% greater than uncoated 
alone. There were no differences in establishment rate above 12.5% artificially-coated 
sand. At 15 DAP uncoated sand amended with artificially-coated sand had 30 - 40% 
greater bermudagrass establishment than uncoated sand alone. There was no difference 
in artificially-coated sand rates above approximately 20% at 15 DAP. At 23 DAP 
artificially-coated sand had 86% bermudagrass establishment while uncoated sand alone 
had only 25% establishment. There was no difference above approximately a rate of 
17% artificially-coated sand. Bermudagrass reached full establishment 30 DAP in the 
presence of as little as 12% artificially-coated sand. The turf planted on uncoated sand 



94 
alone had only reached 50% coverage 30 DAP. Beyond an artificially-coated sand rate of 
12% sand there was no improvement in establishment 30 DAP. 

The presence of artificially-coated sand also improved bermudagrass 
establishment in uncoated sand with peat (Fig. 4-3). The magnitude of improvement in 
establishment rate, however, was less than that observed in the absence of peat. 
Artificially-coated sand increased establishment rate 10 DAP. There was no increase in 
bermudagrass establishment above a rate of 20% artificially-coated sand. At 15 DAP the 
presence of artificially-coated sand continued to improve establishment rate. There was 
no difference in bermudagrass establishment above a rate of 32% artificially-coated sand 
15 DAP. Bermudagrass growing in as little as 4% artificially-coated sand reached almost 
full establishment 23 DAP. There was no difference in artificially-coated sand rates 
above 8% 23 DAP. At 30 DAP bermudagrass reached 100% establishment in the 
presence of artificially-coated sand with no difference in establishment rate above 4 % 
artificially-coated sand. 

The effect of artificially-coated sand varied in the presence and absence of peat. 
In the absence of peat, a lower rate of artificially-coated sand made a greater impact on 
establishment rate over the first 15 DAP. The presence of peat, with its ability to retain 
water and nutrients, diminished the effect of artificially-coated sand through 15 DAP. 
Interestingly, less artificially-coated sand was required to increase establishment rate 
through the final 15 days of establishment. Based on this study, incorporation of 
artificially-coated sand beyond a rate of 32% is unnecessary. 



95 

The rate of artificially-coated sand and presence of peat had an effect on most 
physical measures of the various mixes (Table 4-36). The only measure which peat did 
not influence was macropore space. 

Kjj, was affected by rate and peat (Table 4-36). A peat by rate interaction was not 
detected. However, it appears that at artificially-coated sand rates of 12.5% and 25% 
reduces K^, in the presence of peat in the mix. The optimum rate of artificially-coaftd 
sand and peat, based on K^,, appears to be at the 12.5% rate of artificially-coated sand. 

Bulk density was affected by rate and peat (Table 4-36). There was no rate by 
peat interaction. Bulk density generally decreased with an increasing rate of artificially- 
coated sand. Furthermore, peat reduced bulk density. 

Total pore space was influenced by rate and peat (Table 4-36). There was no rate 
by peat interaction. Total pore space generally increased with rate. Peat also increased 
total pore space. 

Rate affected macropore space (Table 4-36). Peat did not affect macropore space 
nor was there a rate by peat interaction. 

Rate and peat influenced micropore space (Table 4-36). As rate increased 
micropore space generally increased. There was very little difference between the 12.5% 
and 25% rates with and without peat. Peat increased micropore space across all rates of 
artificially-coated sand. 

Water holding capacity (weight basis) was affected by rate and peat (Table 4-36). 
In addition, there was a rate by peat interaction. The highest water holding capacity was 
observed at the highest rate of artificially-coated sand with peat. 



96 



1 1 


T 






— 1 — 


1 — 




CM Cvi CM CM 






© © © © 


► 1 


\u 




4< 


• ♦ 


?5 ^ co © 














t- CM CM O 




























3 3 38 














• < m ► 














►l 


>m 


ii 


m 


en O^ 










<=? 


<N 










*■■ 


^ 










CM 




^* 








%q 


*5 


0) 




a 




X X 


*■ A 
X X 


Q. o 




V 




'-O b. 

<* o 


cj> a 


85 




X O 




,J iJi 


-;«2 


1 (N 




1- •" 




+ ^ = 


°«N .- 


V 

X B 

i_ O 

X A 


► 


X A 
O X 

eq „ 

■■Sf 




in t— ° 

SI- ^ 


S2g 


<D X 




■" f (a 








CJ ,_ 




CN«N $ 








"* .9 




*~ <o m 








+ * 




nco9 






10 f"* «« 




jVK 






M 3f ^ 










^o>9 










LU i 




► »sl 


«V<H 


>♦ 


i i 


I 


►>► — -i* 








«o 



CM 



a: 



CM 



1^ 



o 



CM 



(%) aBejeAoo aoejjns 



c 
u 

E 

.c 

U 

I 

Si 

-a 

3 

I 

.2 

o 



-a 
v 

a 

o 
u 

c 

3 



B 

£ 
-a 
c 
u 



■a 
u 

3 

o 
u 



.2 



o 
I 



4 

iZ 



97 



CM CM CM CM 
© © © © 

55 ? 53 <o 

t- CM CM O 

8888 



4 U ► 



»■ 



0) 
Q. 

+ 



< << 



I Bll 



V 
X 

X 



»► II 



"» X 
CM 

+ 
m 



* |> 



CO 
CO 

I 






« 



♦ • 



♦ • 



=5 

CO 
V 
X 



en 
f*j 

cm 
m 
v 
x en 

<s a 

x* 

O X 

CO L. 

<=£ 

cm m _ 
■*M * 



£=5 

x«3? 

«- X 

= I- 

"» *" ftj 
fN f^ co 



CM 




V 




X 


o 


1— 


o 


£ 


e 




CM 


X 


A 


o 


X 


#«? 


— 


+ 


a 


u-> 


w m 


r*. 


n in 



X 



CM 



O 

r^ 







o 






CM 



S 



S 

"J 



O 

a 

c 

I 

-a 



■a 

5 



c 

u 

E 

1 
u 



s 



.2 
18 



(%) 96ej8aoo eoRJJns 



I 



I 
T 



98 



Table 4-36 Effect of peat and artificially-coated sand rate on various physical analyses of 
the mix. . 



Pore Space 



- Factor - 
Peat Rate 



Ksat BD Total Macro Micro WHC 



% 


cmhr' 1 


gcc 1 




- - - % 






With 


187 


1.52 


40.2 


28.3 


11.9 


7.8 


12.5 


149 


1.53 


39.0 


23.6 


15.4 


10.1 


25.0 


84 


1.46 


44.4 


29.0 


15.3 


10.6 


50.0 


80 


1.38 


46.4 


26.9 


19.5 


14.2 


75.0 


79 


1.32 


47.7 


20.0 


27.7 


21.0 


Without 


188 


1.69 


35.1 


27.7 


7.4 


4.4 


12.5 


185 


1.63 


36.5 


27.4 


9.1 


5.6 


25.0 


114 


1.60 


35.5 


26.2 


9.3 


5.8 


50.0 


79 


1.52 


41.4 


27.9 


13.4 


8.8 


75.0 


84 


1.47 


42.2 


20.7 


21.4 


14.6 


Factor 
Peat 












0.02 


<0.01 


<0.01 


0.56 


<0.01 


<0.01 


Rate 


<0.01 


<0.01 


<0.01 


<0.01 


<0.01 


<0.01 


Peat* Rate 


0.15 


0.46 


0.07 


0.13 


0.09 


<0.01 



99 

Field Study I 2001 - 2002 
Based upon evaluation of glasshouse data, treatments were selected for use in the 
field. Because of physical limitations connected with having plots with lysimeters, a 
balanced factorial design was not an option. Treatments selected for use in the field were 
uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, naturally-coated sand with peat, and uncoated 
sand with peat plus artificially-coated sand. For purposes of convenience, uncoated sand 
amended with peat and artificially-coated sand will be referred to in this chapter as 
artificially-coated sand with peat, even though artificially-coated sand made up only 250 
g kg" 1 of the total mix. 
Establishment 
Selected physical properties of root-zone materials prior to establishment 

Peat had a considerable influence on root-zone physical properties (Table 4-37). 
Uncoated sand without peat had high K^,, exceeding the accelerated range of 30-60 cm 
hr" 1 specified for putting green root zone mixes by the USGA (USGA Green Section 
Staff, 1993). The K^, of uncoated, naturally-, and artificially-coated sand with peat were 
all lower, and within the USGA accelerated range. Peat decreased bulk density and 
increased water holding capacity. The presence of sand grain coatings increased water 
holding capacity. Artificially- and naturally-coated sand with peat had 1 7 % greater water 
holding capacity than uncoated sand with peat. 

Peat had a greater impact on root zone physical properties in the mixes used in the 
field in comparison to the physical properties observed in glasshouse study Phase I (Table 
4-1). In Phase I, no effect of peat on K^,, was observed on undisturbed, relatively 



100 
uncompacted samples. In this field study, however, USGA methods (Hummel, 1993) 
were used which dictate compaction of samples in order to better simulate field 
conditions. This compaction likely decreased macropore space of the treatments with 
peat, causing a decrease in K^, of treatments with peat (Table 4-37). 
Selected chemical properties of root-zone materials prior to establishment 

Initial soil-test values showed little inherent nutrient content of uncoated sand and 
uncoated sand with peat (Table 4-38). Phosphorus and K did not differ greatly among the 
uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, an naturally-coated sand with peat. However, Ca 
and Mg were substantially greater for naturally-coated sand than for either uncoated sand 
or Uncoated sand with peat. The soil-test values for P, K, Ca, and Mg in artificially- 
coated sand with peat were considerably greater than those of the other root-zone mixes, 
with the exception of Mg in the two coated sands. The acetic-acid extractable P (Pa) 
more or less represents "reserve P", as opposed to the water soluble P (Pw). Whereas Pa 
of the artificially-coated sand was 31 times that of the naturally-coated sand, Pw was only 
slightly more than three times greater suggesting that relative P leaching may not be as 
great for the artificially-coated sand, relative to the others, as might appear based on the 
difference in soil-test P. 

Soil pH was substantially greater in the coated sands than in the uncoated sand, 
and was quite high for the artificially-coated sand (Table 4-38). As noted previously 
whereas the same clay was used for artificially-coated sand in all studies, the polymer 
resin used for the artificially-coated sand in Field Study I was different from the polymer 



101 
coating used in Phases I - III. For this reason, it is assumed that the pH of the artificially- 
coated sand used in Field Study I was related to the resin. 

Peat and sand grain coating increased CEC (Table 4-38). Only mixes containing 
naturally- and artificially-coated had CEC values > 6 cmol kg" 1 , a benchmark value for 
optimal turfgrass/root-zone performance suggested by Petri and Petrovic (2001). 
Oxalate extractable Fe and Al 

Oxalate extractable Fe and Al of both uncoated and naturally -coated sand were 
very low (Table 4-39). Furthermore, oxalate extractable Fe and Al of naturally-coated 
sand used in Field Study was much less than that of the naturally-coated sand used in the 
Glasshouse Studies (Table 4-4). These data indicate a low potential for P sorption by the 
naturally-coated sand used in the Field Study. Artificially-coated sand generally had 
greater oxalate extractable Fe and Al than uncoated and naturally-coated sand because of 
the phyllosilicate clay. 
'Tifdwarf bermudagrass coverage rate during establishment 

'Tifdwarf establishment was affected by the presence of peat and secondly by 
artificially-coated sand (Table 4-40). Establishment rate was slowest in uncoated sand. 
Peat, probably because of increased moisture retention capability, greatly improved 
establishment in uncoated sand which is consistent with research by Nus'et al., (1 987), 
Bigelow et al., (2000), Waltz and McCarty, (2000), and Brown et al., (2000). There was, 
however, little difference in establishment rate between uncoated sand with peat and 
naturally-coated sand with peat. Whereas naturally-coated sand improved establishment 
rate in Phase I (Table 4-5), the naturally-coated sand used in Field Study I had less 



102 
influence on establishment rate (Table 4-40). The most rapid 'Tifdwarf establishment 
rate was observed in artificially-coated sand. 'Tifdwarf growing in artificially-coated 
sand had greater percent coverage on all observation dates, except 57 DAP, likely the 
result of increased water retention and nutrient content (Table 4-37, 4-38). These 
observations correspond to those made in the Artificially-coated Sand Rate Study (Fig. 4- 
3). Uncoated sand with peat, naturally-coated sand with peat, and artificially-coated sand 
with peat completed establishment between 60 and 75 DAP with uncoated sand without 
peat not reaching 100 % coverage until 90 DAP even though all treatments were fertilized 
with substantial amounts of N, P, K, Mg, and micronutrients. 
Clipping production during establishment 

Differences in clipping production (Table 4-41), measured as lawn mower 
clippings, somewhat reflected the differences observed in visual establishment rate (Table 
4-40). The inclusion of peat in uncoated sand greatly improved clipping production from 
uncoated sand at 50, 57, 74, and 81 DAP. Interestingly, clipping production from 
naturally-coated sand was only greater than uncoated sand without peat 57 DAP. 
Clipping production from artificially-coated sand was greater than that of naturally-coated 
sand 57, 74, 81, and 88 DAP, and was greater than that of uncoated sand at all harvest 
periods except 88 DAP. However, it was never greater than uncoated sand with peat. 
The lack of significance between uncoated sand with peat and artificially coated sand 
with peat may have occurred in part because clippings were not collected until 38 DAP 
when coverage was becoming more similar. It was not possible to take clippings earlier, 
when greater coverage differences were observed between these two treatments. 



103 
Total clipping production over the establishment period was greatest in uncoated 
and artificially-coated sands with peat (Table 4-41). Late season grow-in conditions, such 
as shortening days and cloudy days, may have reduced the opportunity to observe 
differences among all treatments. 
Potassium leaching during establishment 

Potassium leaching was not influenced by peat during establishment (Table 4-42), 
but was much greater for the artificially-coated sand, which had higher initial quantity of 
K than the other mixes, during the first 51 DAP (Table 4-38). By 75 DAP, percolate K 
concentrations (Table A-9) from artificially-coated sand amended plots decreased to 
levels equal to unamended plots as soluble K was depleted from artificial-coating. The 
greater CEC of peat and naturally-coated sand did not reduce K leaching during 
establishment. Percolate K concentrations collected from uncoated sand with peat did not 
differ from uncoated sand alone suggesting either that sphagnum peat does little to reduce 
K leaching or that the K fertilization rate was too great for differences to exist (Table A- 
9). The latter explanation would be supported by the observation that in Phase I 2000, 
when K fertilization occurred monthly, the inclusion of peat at times helped to reduce K 
leached from uncoated sand (Table 4-7, 4-8). 

Artificially-coated sand with peat had the greatest total K leached during Field 
Study I establishment (Table 4-44). In glasshouse study Phase I, the establishment phase, 
less total K leached from the artificially-coated sand treatments (Table 4-7). The 
artificially-coated sand used in the field study apparently served as a charged source of 
slow release K (Table 4-38). It is not possible to differentiate applied K in percolate 



104 
water from that initially contained in the artificially-coated sand. Despite diversities in 
CEC, there were no differences in total K leached between uncoated sand, uncoated sand 
with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat. Approximately, 71 .2, 3 1 .2, and 49.2 % of 
applied K leached from uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated 
sand with peat, respectively. In comparison, during the Phase I 2000 establishment study 
when a total of 25 g K was applied in three fertilizations, 31% of applied K leached from 
uncoated sand and 16% from naturally-coated sand. It appears that the naturally-coated 
sand used in Field study I was less capable of K retention than the naturally-coated sand 
used in the glasshouse study. This likely is because the sand used in the field study was 
commercially washed and graded, which probably displaced coatings from the sand 
surfaces, whereas the sand used in the glasshouse study was not subjected to such 
processing. In addition, it is possible that colloids observed in the percolate water 
leached from naturally-coated sand treatments may have been responsible for colloid- 
facilitated transport of K (Ryan and Gschwend, 1994). In a similar study, Chung et al. 
(1999) reported that 1 1% of total K, applied to sodded bermudagrass turf in total at 15 g 
K m" 2 as KC1. was leached from a USGA root-zone mix containing uncoated sand. 
Phosphorus leaching during establishment 

Phosphorus leaching was influenced little by coating and peat (Table 4-43). In 
addition, phosphorus leaching generally increased with time. The presence of natural 
sand grain coatings did not reduce P leaching in the field, whereas they did in previous 
glasshouse studies (Tables 4-10, 4-18, 4-29) (Brown et al. 2000). Furthermore, greater P 
leaching was observed from naturally-coated sand with peat than uncoated and uncoated 



105 
sand with peat 2, 5, 20, 28, and 39 DAP. Despite greater inherent P content, the 
artificially-coated sand with peat treatment percolate P concentrations did not differ from 
those of uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat after 
the first 10 DAP (Appendix). From 42 to 90 DAP no differences in P leached were 
observed among the treatments. By 28 DAP, the leachate P concentration of all 
treatments was > 0.3 mg L 1 , the concentration that has been reported to cause surface 
water eutrophication (Petrovic, 1995) (Appendix). Wong et al. (1998) also observed 
leachate P concentration from greens > 0.3 mg L" 1 , ranging from 3.25 to 10.00 mg L"\ 
and further stated that added P must have exceeded both plant requirements and 
absorption capacity of the sandy root zone. It is likely that this also occurred in this field 
study because of the high rate and frequency of P fertilization. 

Unlike as in the previous studies Phases I - III and Brown et al. (2000), naturally- 
coated sand did not reduce total P leached (Table 4-38). Brown et al. (2000) only 
observed a loss of 7% of applied P from naturally-coated sand with peat as compared to a 
loss of 33 % of applied P in this field study during establishment. In Phase I 2000 
establishment, naturally-coated sand with or without peat had reduced applied P loss to 
less than 1 %. Clearly properties of the naturally-coated sand used in this field study, 
such as very low oxalate extractable Fe and Al (Table ), did not favor P retention. 

Uncoated sand and uncoated sand with peat performed more similarly to results 
observed in Phase I 2000 and previous studies (Table 4-44). Uncoated sand and uncoated 
sand with peat lost 32 and 1 1 % of applied P, respectively. Brown et al. (2000) observed 
a loss of 1 1 % and 14 % applied P from uncoated sand without peat and uncoated sand 



106 
with peat. Wong et al. (1998) observed that 38 % of P applied to a sandy putting green 
root zone was lost in leachate. 

Surprisingly, total P leached was not greater from artificially-coated sand than 
uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat (Table 4-44) 
despite far greater initial soil-test P (Table 4-38). 
Relative K and P leached during establishment 

Because the influence of inherent K and P levels was observed during 
establishment (Table 4-44 ), relating K and P leached to inherent K and P root zone levels 
(Table 4-45) may provide more information regarding K and P leaching from treatments. 
Relative K and P leached accounts for K and P applied as fertilizer and K and P inherent 
to treatments. Relative K and P leached is calculated by dividing total K and P leached 
by the sum of applied K and P and 30 cm root zone K and P levels. 

Relative K leaching was generally affected by the addition of peat and artificially- 
coated sand (Table 4-45). While there were no differences in total K leached among 
uncoated sand, uncoated with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat during 
establishment (Table 4-44), the inclusion of peat generally decreased relative K leached 
from uncoated and naturally-coated sand in comparison to uncoated sand alone. 
Increased K retention of uncoated and naturally-coated sand amended with peat versus 
uncoated sand alone is best observed when the K contributed by the peat is accounted for. 
Artificially-coated sand with peat generally had the highest relative K leached even when 
normalizing for the K content of artificially-coated sand (Table 4-45). The CEC of 



107 
artificially-coated sand with peat (Table 4-38) was unable to reduce relative K leached in 
comparison to the other treatments because of such high inherent K content (Table 4-38). 

Because P is less mobile, increasing the P content of root zone with peat and 
artificially-coated sand amendments generally did not increase relative P leached during 
establishment (Table 4-39). Naturally-coated sand with peat, having double the P content 
of uncoated sand with peat (Table 4-38), generally had a higher relative P leached than 
uncoated sand with peat. Relatively less P leached from uncoated sand with peat than 
uncoated sand alone. In addition, relatively less P leached from artificially-coated sand 
with peat than the other treatments despite a high P content (Table 4-38). 
K uptake during establishment 

The presence of peat generally had the greatest effect on K uptake during 
establishment (Table 4-46). Uncoated sand with peat had greater K uptake on all harvest 
dates than uncoated sand alone. Although the inclusion of peat in uncoated sand helped 
to increase K uptake relative to uncoated sand alone, in part because of greater clipping 
production, the inclusion of peat also increased K tissue concentration of the uncoated 
sand treatment 38, 57, and 81 DAP (Table A- 13). In Phase I 2000 establishment, peat 
also improved K uptake because of increased clipping production and at times because of 
increased tissue K concentration (Table 4-9, A-l). Artificially-coated sand with peat also 
increased K uptake at all harvest dates relative to uncoated sand. Artificially-coated sand 
with peat increased tissue K concentration relative to uncoated sand at 38, 50, 57, and 81 
DAP (Table A-l 3). Naturally-coated sand with peat, however, only increased K uptake 
relative to uncoated sand at 38 and 57 DAP with an increase in tissue K concentration 



108 
occurring only at 57 DAP. In Phase I 2000, naturally-coated sand had increased K uptake 
over that of uncoated sand throughout the establishment period (Table 4-9, A-l). 

Generally, there was no difference in K uptake between artificially-coated sand 
with peat and uncoated sand with peat (Table 4-46). Perhaps because of the high K 
fertilization rate and frequency (2.7 g K m" 2 or slightly more than 0.5 lb K 1000 ft 2 week - 
'), artificially-coated sand did not increase K uptake relative to that of uncoated sand with 
peat during establishment, where as a difference was previously observed in Phase I 2000 

(Table 4-9). 

Naturally-coated sand with peat did not increase K uptake over that of uncoated 
sand with peat at any of the harvest dates during establishment (Table 4-46). In fact, K 
uptake from naturally-coated sand with peat actually was less than that of uncoated sand 
with peat at every harvest date. Naturally-coated sand with peat did not affect K uptake, 
perhaps for the same reasons discussed relative to K leaching. 

The inclusion of peat, and to some degree the presence of coatings, increased total 
K uptake during establishment (Table 4-46). Uncoated sand had the lowest total K 
uptake, accumulating only 2% of the K applied during establishment. Total K uptake 
was greater from naturally-coated sand with peat than uncoated sand but was less than 
that of uncoated and artificially-coated sand with peat. There was no difference in total K 
uptake between uncoated sand with peat and artificially-coated sand with peat, with both 
treatments having accumulated 4% of the applied K. In Phase I 2000 naturally- and 
artificially-coated sand had increased total K uptake relative to uncoated sand (Table 4-9). 



109 
P uptake during establishment 

The inclusion of peat in uncoated sand increased P uptake (Table 4-47). 
Uncoated sand with peat increased P uptake at all harvest dates relative to uncoated sand. 
The increase in P uptake is likely attributable to an increase in clipping production, since 
tissue P concentration of uncoated sand with peat was only greater than that of uncoated 
sand once during establishment (57 DAP). Similar results were observed in Phase I 2000 
where peat improved P uptake during establishment primarily because of increased 
clipping production rather than an increase in tissue P concentration (Table 4-10, A-2). 

The influence of sand grain coatings on P uptake varied during establishment 
(Table 4-47). There was greater P uptake in artificially-coated sand with peat than 
uncoated sand and naturally-coated sand with peat at all harvest dates. There was, 
however, no difference between artificially-coated sand with peat and uncoated sand with 
peat during establishment. Furthermore, at all harvest dates greater P uptake was 
observed from uncoated sand with peat than naturally-coated sand with peat. Most 
notably, naturally-coated sand did not increase P uptake over that of uncoated sand. In 
Phase I 2000, the presence of natural sand grain coatings only increased P uptake at two 
of four harvest dates (29 and 58 DAP) during establishment with those increases 
occurring only because of greater clipping production and not increased tissue P 
concentration (Table 4-10, A-2). 

The inclusion of peat increased total P uptake during establishment while the 
presence of sand grain coatings was less clear (Table 4-47). Uncoated sand had the 
smallest quantity of total P uptake during establishment. In phase I 2000 the inclusion of 



110 
peat had also increased total P uptake (Table 4-10). There was no difference between 
uncoated sand with peat and artificially-coated sand with peat. In phase I 2000 the 
presence of artificially-coated sand had increased total P uptake (Table 4-10). Naturally- 
coated sand with peat did increase total P uptake relative to uncoated sand, however, that 
increase is likely related to the inclusion of peat. In phase 1 2000 naturally-coated sand 
had also increased total P uptake over that of uncoated sand (Table 4-10). However, that 
increase in total P uptake can also be attributed to increased clipping production observed 
because of the presence of peat in the root zone mixture (Table 4-6). 
Relative K and P uptake during establishment 

The inclusion of peat generally increased relative K uptake in comparison to 
uncoated sand alone (Table 4-48). Relative K uptake of uncoated and naturally-coated 
sand amended with peat was increased over that of uncoated sand probably because of 
increased clipping production. The lowest relative K uptake was generally observed from 
artificially-coated sand with peat. 

As was observed with K, the addition of peat to uncoated and naturally-coated 
sand generally increased relative P uptake in comparison to uncoated sand alone (Table 4- 
48). In general, the lowest relative P uptake was observed from artificially-coated sand 
with peat. 
Volumetric moisture content during establishment 

Differences in moisture content among treatments were observed throughout the 
grow-in period using a ThetaProbe which determines moisture content to a depth of 6 cm 
(Table 4-49). Previous research has shown that ThetaProbe readings show a strong linear 



Ill 

response to soil moisture content (Hanson and Peters, 2000). Uncoated sand without peat 
had the lowest moisture content regardless of irrigation frequency. The addition of peat 
to uncoated sand improved moisture content 3 - 4 % during establishment. Perhaps 
because of their clay coatings, naturally-coated sand with peat and artificially-coated sand 
with peat had the greatest root zone moisture content during grow-in. Even though plots 
were irrigated regularly, lower soil moisture, especially in the uncoated sand without peat, 
may have contributed to slower establishment (Table 4-40) and less clipping production 
(Table 4-41). Although volumetric moisture content of treatments measured in the field 
were less than those of volumetric moisture content measured using physical analysis 
techniques (Table 4-37), the exact same trends in volumetric moisture content were 
observed in the field. None of the treatments, however, had volumetric moisture contents 
> 15% during establishment, a suggested level of volumetric moisture for a successful 
sand-based root zone (Bingaman and Kohnke, 1970). 
Selected chemical properties of root zone mixes at the conclusion of establishment 

Soil pH of treatments differed at the end of the grow-in period. Uncoated sand 
had the highest pH (Table 4-50), whereas it had been among the lowest at the start of the 
study (Table 4-38). High pH irrigation water and low buffer capacity of uncoated sand 
likely contributed to the substantial increase in pH. Elevated soil pH in unbuffered sand 
soils at the FLREC previously has been attributed to calcium bicarbonate in the irrigation 
water at that location (Snyder et al., 1979). Uncoated sand with peat had the lowest pH 
value, but it too increased considerably during the study (from 4.3 to 6.8). The addition 
of sphagnum peat, an acidic peat source, with high CEC and buffering capacity, 



112 
contributed to the lower pH observed for uncoated sand with peat relative to the same 
sand without peat. In contrast to the uncoated sand, the pH of artificially-coated sand 
decreased very substantially during the grow-in study. The acidifying effect of weekly 
fertilization may have contributed to the reduction in pH. The pH of naturally-coated 
sand with peat decreased only slightly if at all during establishment. 

Acetic-acid extractable P (Pa) of all treatments was greater at the completion of 
the grow-in period (Table 4-50) relative to the beginning of the study (Table 4-38) as a 
result of the frequent P fertilization conducted during grow-in. In addition, water soluble 
P (Pw) of the root zone mixes increased with the exception of artificially-coated sand 
with peat which essentially remained constant. Artificially-coated sand with peat had the 
greatest acetic-acid extractable and water soluble P at the end of establishment. But 
whereas Pw appeared to decrease slightly relative to the initial soil-test, Pa continued to 
increase, indicating additional ability of this material to absorb and retain P. There was 
no difference in Pa and Pw among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally- 
coated sand with peat. 

Differences in soil K were observed following the grow-in period. Artificially- 
coated sand with peat continued to have the greatest quantity of soil test K (Table 4-50), 
although it was down considerably from the pre-establishment value (Table 4-38). High 
soil K in the artificially-coated sand with peat treatment can be attributed to inherent K 
levels of the artificially-coated sand. Uncoated sand with peat had greater soil K than 
uncoated sand. Interestingly, despite the presence of peat and greater CEC, there was no 
difference between naturally-coated sand with peat and uncoated sand. 



113 
Differences in soil Ca and Mg were observed among root zone mixes at the end of 

the grow-in period (Table 4-50). Artificially-coated sand had the highest quantity of Ca 

and Mg, followed by naturally-coated sand with peat, uncoated sand with peat, and 

uncoated sand. Soil Ca levels of uncoated sand with peat and uncoated sand were 

elevated with respect to initial quantities, probably as a result of Ca inputs from irrigation. 

Differences in soil Mg at the end of grow-in can likely be attributed to inherent 

levels of Mg in the root zone mixes, with a lesser contribution from fertilizer. 

Artificially-coated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat had higher levels of 

Mg in pre-construction materials and continued to have higher Mg at the end of grow-in. 

There was no difference between uncoated sand and uncoated sand with peat at the 

conclusion of the grow-in period. Furthermore, only uncoated sand experienced an 

increase, which was small, in soil Mg relative to pre-construction Mg levels. 



114 



Table 4-37 Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K^J, volumetric water holding capacity 
(8v), and bulk density (cp Rn ) of the four root-zone media prior to construction field study I. 
Root-zone K^ (^ (gac 





- -cm h" 1 - - 


LI/ 1 


gem 3 


Uncoated 


86.0at 


0.10c 


1.70a 


Uncoated with peat 


49.4b 


0.18b 


1.62b 


Naturally with peat 


48.4b 


0.22a 


1.58b 


Artificially with peat 


36.1b 


0.21a 


1.57b 



tAny means followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's 
Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-38 Selected chemical properties of root zone media used in field study I prior to 
construction. 



Root zone 


PH 


CEC 


Pa 


Pw 


K 


Ca 


Mg 




cmol c kg" 1 






mgL- 1 






Uncoated Sand 


5.5 


0.0 


1 


1 


1 








Uncoated Sand and Peat 


4.3 


2.1 


5 


3 


7 


29 


11 


Naturally-Coated Sand 


5.4 


4.3 


4 





1 


92 


2 


Naturally-Coated Sand and Peat 


7.3 


6.4 


10 


6 


3 


243 


105 


Artificially-Coated Sand 


7.4 


10.1 


1119 


8 


2142 


1369 


496 


Artificially-Coated Sand and Peat 


10.0 


6.0 


316 


19 


508 


481 


126 


Emathlite Clay 




7.0 


71.4 


762 


5 


52 


978 
358 



Pw - water-extractable P 

Pa, K, Ca, Mg - acetic acid extractable nutrients 



Table 4-39 Oxalate extractable P, Al, and Fe of materials used field studies. 



Type 




P 


Al 


Fe 


Coating 


Peat 




mg kg 1 








Uncoated 


without 


7.6(±0.3) 


bdl 


bdl 


Uncoated 


with 


8.7(±7.2) 


2.1 (±0.4) 


bdl 


Naturally 


without 


bdl 


bdl 


bdl 


Naturally 


with 


18.9(±0.4) 


57.3(±0.4) 


bdl 


Artificially 


without 


1022.5(+31.2) 


166.4(±1.1) 


22.7(±0.9) 


Artificially 


with 


217.2(±11.9) 


87.3(±2.7) 


9.5(±1.5) 


Emathlite Clay 


12230(±430) 


3006(± 126) 


1561(± 










179) 



115 



Table 4-40 Influence of root zone media on 'Tifdwarf coverage as a function of time 

after planting field study 1 2001 - 2002. 

Root zone Days after planting 

14 21 35 38 50 57 

Coverage (%) 

Uncoated 5.8ct 15.0d 46.2c 36.2c 45.0c 56.2c 

Unc. + Peat 9.5b 25.0c 60.0b 56.2b 77.5b 87.5ab 

Nat. + Peat 7.0bc 28.8b 55.0bc 52.5b 72.5b 83.8b 

Art. + Peat 16.2a 41.2a 76.2a 71.2a 87.5a 92.5a 

t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-41 Influence of root zone media on clipping production as a function of time 
after planting field study I. 



Root zone 


Days after planting 








38 50 57 74 81 


88 


Total 




_2 


13.6ab 




Uncoated 


10.6bt 3.3c 1.4c 11.7b 26.6b 


70.4b 


Unc. + Peat 


21.6ab 10.7a 4.2a 20.8a 44.0a 


14.8a 


116.1a 


Nat. + Peat 


17.6ab 5.2bc2.8b 14.3b 26.6b 


8.2c 


74.6b 


Art. + Peat 


28.7a 7.0b 5.0a 23.6a 41.3a 


12.5b 


118.2a 



t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Ofi 
C 



u 

<tt 

n 
u 
| 

o 

c 
o 

o 

c 

a 

03 
on 

CO 

c 

o 

CO 

§ 

3 

on 

on 
03 
+-* 
O 

D. 

c 

O 
C3 

(U CN 

c o 

(U fN 

C ' 

o — 

N o 

§ «N 

— "^ 

c 

u 
u 

c 



00 

c 



C3 

en 

03 

Q 



-a 

3 



(1) 


T3 




3 


<l) 




q 


G 




^c 


c 




fN 
i 


<L> 


u 

C 


T 


01 


q 


u 




N 


^^ 


n 


■*— i 


-C 


eg 


o 


H 


♦3 





H 


U 


c* 



o 



oo 



in 
r- 



NO 



ir> 



if 






m 



ts 

m 



oo 

fN 



m 

fN 



O 

fN 



m 



wo 



fN 



Cfl 



03 


03 


03 


03 




00 


m 


fN 


ON 




q 


■* 


O 


<* 




— 


d 


— 


_! 




ca 


03 


ed 


03 




p» 


00 


fN 


O 




o 


CO 


ON 


ON 




o 


d 


d 


d 




ed 


CO 


re 


a 




on 


m 


IT) 


en 




<tf 


rn 


NO 


rj 




d 


d 


d 


M 




03 


a 


C3 


03 




m 


00 


m 


NO 




rn 


~~ 


r- 


o 




— ^ 


d 


d 


r-i 




ed 


03 


03 


03 




IT> 


IT) 


"* 


in 




<N 


rn 


NO 


CN 




rn" 


— 


«-« 


en 




X! 




X 






03 


X 


03 


03 


w 


00 


in 


ON 


fN 


c 


f-; 


en 


u-i 


CnI 


s 


t*i 


d 


(N 


r-^ 


1 


XI 


X 


X 


03 


l/-> 


o 


fN 


rt 


X) 


"* 


-<r 


00 


NO 


d 


d 


d 


CnJ 


^>> 


X 




X 




"rt 


eg 


X 


C3 


CO 


o 


o 


Tf 


00 


m 


"■*-» 


o 


m 


r- 


■<a- 


C/3 


d 


d 


d 


(N 


I 


X 


X 


X 


03 


4_t 


fN 


o 


ro 


r*« 


O 


00 


ON 


q 


^ 


C5 


d 


d 


— 


NO 


i 


X 


X 


X 


03 


oo 


m 


o 


00 


U 


q 


(N 


* 


>n 


e 


(N 


-" 


— • 


00 


ju 


X 


X 


X 


c<3 


u 


o 


00 


fN 


m 


c 


in 


en 


O 


CnI 


uo 


— ■ 


fN 


fN 


d 

(N 


X 


X 


X 


X 


CO 


■^^ 


fN 


fN 


00 




>> 


O 


C 


o 


00 


X 


d 


d 


d 


d 




X 


X 


X 


CO 


_o 


fN 


F 


00 


NO 


NO 


en 


en 


ON 


1 


d 


d 


d 


00 










"3 C/3 


X 


X 


X 


CO 


C cj 


o 


ON 


F» 


ON 


3 H 


rn 


<n 


— 




8 op 


d 


d 


d 


in 








PBM< 


r. c 


X 


X 


X 


CO 


§ * 


» 


oo 


r^ 


ON 


m 


O 


— 


ON 


K ju 


d 


d 


d 


f^ 


u "H. 


X 


X 


X 


CO 


II 


fN 


i/-i 


ON 


1-4 


m 


■ — • 


o 


fN 


d 


d 


— ', 


OO 


.ti on 


X 


X 


X 


co 


IS w 
can' 


m 


ON 




00 


en 


NO 


tl; 


•* 


CO c 


" 


d 


d 


fN 


(U 3 

E Q 


-a 
u 


3 
u 

2- 


+4 

03 
U 


CO 

(J 

Oh 


tAn 

05) b 


o 


+ 


+ 


+ 


d 


o 


6 


■+-* 




A 


c 


c 


03 


ti 


& 


D 


D 


z 


< 



116 



c 



o 

<e 

re 
U 

a 

-^ 
<*- 

o 
c 
o 

-*-» 

u 

c 

a 

re 
3 

DC 

C 



u 

re 



c 
X! 
D. 
to 
O 

JB 

a 

e 

o 

c o 

U CN 



'■3 

c 

re 



re 

M 

>^ 

re 
Q 



o 

ON 



00 



in 



nO 



ITi 















00 
CM 



m 

cn 



O 
tN 



C 

o 

N 
■*-< 
C 

2 

V- 



u 

c 

<u 

3 

c 



I 

— 

S 
H 



o 
o 

CN 

>> 

3 
■^' 

"5 

is 

c 



(N 



X> 

Cd 

U 



c 

o 

c 

o 



re 


re 


re 


ed 




CN 


v£> 


f- 


u-> 




, ^- 


— 


ir> 


CN 




i O 


d 


d 


d 




' ed 


ed 


ed 


ed 




i O 


r» 


00 


CN 




i w> 


o 


r^ 


•—i 




' © 


d 


d 


d 




' ed 


re 


re 


ed 




' CN 


r» 


O 


CN 




i CN 


o 


CN 


— 




' © 


d 


d 


d 




ed 


re 


re 


ed 




' O 


m 


^o 


On 




' «/■> 


o 


CN 


O 




© 


d 


d 


d 




ed 


re 


re 


ed 




■<*• 


r- 


o 


m 




rf 


o 


n- 


>~i 




, © 


d 


d 


d 




i ed 


re 


re 


ed 


c 
2 


i o 


*■ 


m 


v© 


, ■* 


o 


OJ 


•-H 


i © 

ed 


d 
re 


d 

re 


d 
ed 


1 


»/-> 


oo 


CN 


On 


^ 


o 


o 


(N 


O 


! © 


d 


d 


d 


"re 


i ed 


re 


ed 


ed 


o 


*•© 


TT 


00 


On 


'-*-< 


Tt 


m 


•* 


— 


V3 


, © 


d 


d 


d 


l 


< X 


X 


re 


x> 


or; 


i O 


in 


oo 


m 


O 


i (N 


m 


oo 


m 


c 


' © 


d 


d 


d 




' ed 


X 


X 


X) 


■ </■> 


in 


i—< 


Tf 


s 


i r*} 


CN 


TT 


>— i 


e 


j *~^ 


d 


d 


d 


_u 


s ^ 


X 


re 


x> 


u 


00 -- 


IT) 


V© 


00 


S 


I <**> 


(N 


c-- 


^* 


00 


i © 


d 


d 


d 


X 


i ed 


re 


re 


ed 


■^-' 


i O 


o 


CM 




>-> 


, © 


o 


o 


© 


X 


i © 


d 


d 


d 


-a 


' X 


X 


re 


X 
ed 


O 


I ■* 


<N 


00 


nO 


i o 


O 


— 


o 


1 


■ o 


d 


d 


d 










C -K 


' ed 


re 


re 


re 


colum 
geTe 


' On 


CN 


■* 


00 


i O 


o 


*-« 


o 


| © 


d 


d 


d 


ed 


re 


re 


ed 


8 J 


CN 


m 


m 


m 


' o 


o 


CM 




a! _u 


| d 


d 


d 


d 


X '& 


o 


X 


re 


ed 


hint 
Mul 


*-^ 


ir> 


<r-> 


nO 


o 


CN 


^r 


■* 


, d 


d 


d 


d 


• - J* 5 


i -t- 

X 


X 


re 


re 


on W 


I ^^ 


ro 


ci 


■* 


§ 1 


, o 


O 


m 


r"> 


■ d 


d 


d 


d 


(U 3 

E a 


U 


-*- 

re 

a- 


re 


ed 
U 

0. 


S x 
^^ o 


re 

c 


+ 


+ 


+ 


d 


o 


o 


•<— > 




A 


c 


c 


re 


ti 


a^ 


D 


D 


z 


< 



117 



JO 



118 



c 



X) 



X) 

ca 

en 
4J 



■O 

3 

12 

SC 

00 
C 
E 

3 

-a 

-a 
u 

X 

y 

i 

_3 
09 

ca 
o 

Q. 



O 
X! 

a 

c 

X 

a. 

c 

c 
o 
ca 

-a 
o 

E 

u 

c 
o 

N 

o 

c 



o 

u 
u 

3 
U 

3 

C 



X 
M 



o 



£ 

3 

'en 

ca 
-^> 
O 
Oh 



-a 
© 

a 
a 



Oh 



C 

X 
c 

X 
Oh 



3 
O 

N 

C 

o 

os" 



CN <N <N On 

-- — < OS © 

f~- ro tj- ^h 

-<a- 



=£ 



X 

1/1 

q 



X X 

OS rj- 

O OS 

© »0 



q 



>/-> »-H 



r^> 



SO 



~ — r«l in 

tn — m —I 



E 



o 
o 
A 
Q, 

^ — •' 

■4— » 

3 
C 

ig 

T3 
_>> 

"ca 
O 



ca 
on 

o 

3 
U 

e 



X 
X 

•o 

_o 

I 

3 

E 

_3 
C 

o 

1> 











9) 


H- 








X 


cd 


C3 


C3 


ca 


-♦-* 


m 


SO 


r-~ 


00 


a 


00 


o 


— 


00 


jEi 


iy~i 


<N 


so 


(N 


in 

s 

E 


-a 
u 

+H 


3 
U 
Oh 


+H 

ca 
<u 
0. 


"ca 

Oh 


tAn 
Test. 


o 


+ 


+ 


+ 


u 

00 


3 


6 

3 




tj 


§ 


D 


S3 


z 


< 


p2 



119 

Table 4-45 Potassium and P leached during Field Study I establishment relative to total K 

and P added and soil-testt K and P prior to Field Study I establishment. 

K P 

Uncoated sand 65 31 

Uncoated sand with peat 29 1 

Naturally-coated sand with peat 48 29 

Artificially-coated sand with peat 85 3 
t Soil-test K and P are based on 30 cm root zone. 



120 

Table 4-46 Influence of root zone media on bermudagrass K uptake as a function of time 

after planting field study I. 

Root zone Days after planting 

38 50 57 74 81 88 Total 









- - K mg m" 2 — 






-Kgrn" 2 - 


Uncoated 


46.6ct 


23.5c 


14.4c 370.9b 


161.1c 


185.4c 


0.6c 


Unc. + Peat 


263.6a 


117.5a 


55.3a 629.2a 


214.9a 


359.4a 


1.4a 


Nat. + Peat 


143.1b 


41.9c 


36.8b 445.3b 


116.4c 


213.8bc 


0.9b 


Art. + Peat 


325.1a 


79.7b 


63.4a 661.6a 


197.9ab 


309.0ab 


1.4a 



t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-47 Influence of root zone media on bermudagrass P uptake as a function of time 
after planting field study I. 



Root zone 




Days after planting 










38 


50 57 74 


81 


88 


Total 




17.8ct 




-Pgrn" 2 - 
0.2c 


Uncoated 


9.7c 4.6c 127.8b 


53.8b 


58.3b 


Unc. + Peat 


66.3a 


38.9a 16.7a 199.8a 


68.9a 


104.0a 


0.4a 


Nat. + Peat 


40.3b 


14.2c 11.0b 143.4b 


39.0c 


64.1b 


0.3b 


Art. + Peat 


81.1a 


25.8b 19.8a 208.8a 


61.0ab 


93.2a 


0.4a 



t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



121 

Table 4-48 Potassium and P uptake during Field Study I establishment relative to total K 

and P added and soil-testf K and P prior to Field Study I establishment. 

K P 



-% 

Uncoated sand 1.7 1.1 

Uncoated sand with peat 4.0 2.0 

Naturally-coated sand with peat ^P= 3-.0 1.4 

Artificially-coated sand with peat 0.9 0.4 



t Soil-test K and P are based on 30 cm root zone. 



122 



Table 4-49 Influence of root zone media on soil moisture content as a function of time 

after planting field study I. 

Root zone Days after planting! 

7 10 14 16 23 35 



Volumetric moisture content 

Uncoated 0.06c$ 0.06c 0.07c 0.02c 0.04c 0.04c 
Unc. + Peat 0.10b 0.11b 0.10b 0.06b 0.08b 0.08b 
Nat. + Peat 0.13a 0.13a 0.12a 0.08a 0.10a 0.10a 
Art. + Peat 0.13a 0.13a 0.13a 0.08a 0.10a 0.10a 

tirrigation was applied four times per day the first fourteen days after planting 
then reduced to once daily thereafter. 

JAny means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-50 Selected properties of root zone media upon completion of establishment 
field study I. 



Type 


pH 


Pa Pw 


K 


Ca 


Mg 








mgL- 1 - 

5.2c 






Uncoated Sand 


8.0a t 


20.5b 7.0b 


50.3d 


3.7c 


Uncoated Sand and Peat 


6.8d 


22.2b 8.0b 


9.2b 


134.1c 


9.0c 


Naturally-Coated Sand and Peat 


7.1c 


23.7b 6.7b 


8.1 be 


231.6b 


35.4b 


Artificially-Coated Sand and Peat 


7.5b 


368.9a 15.4a 


83.2a 


462.5a 


67.0a 



t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 
Pw - water-extractable P 
Pa, K, Ca, Mg - acetic acid extractable nutrients 



123 
Clipping production during maintenance 

Differences in clipping production were observed throughout the maintenance 
period when P and K fertilization had ceased (Table 4-51). Generally, there were no 
differences between artificially-coated sand with peat and uncoated sand with peat early 
in the maintenance period, 143, 157, and 187 DAP, when soil P and K were likely still 
adequate as a result of fertilization during establishment (Table 4-50). However, as soil 
P and K depleted during maintenance, the presence of artificially-coated sand increased 
clipping production 200 and 214 DAP relative to the other treatments. In Phase II 2001 
the presence of artificially -coated sand increased clipping production over that of 
uncoated sand throughout the maintenance period (Table 4-14). With regards to 
naturally-coated sand with peat, only at 130 DAP was clipping production in this mix 
greater than in uncoated sand. At no point was clipping production in naturally-coated 
sand with peat greater than in uncoated sand with peat or artificially-coated sand with 
peat. In Phase II 2001 naturally-coated sand had increased clipping production relative to 
uncoated sand, an observation not made during this field study maintenance period (Table 
4-14). From 187 to 214 DAP no difference was observed among uncoated sand, 
uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat. 

Artificially-coated sand with peat had the greatest total clipping accumulation 
during the maintenance period (Table 4-51). In Phase II 2001 the presence of artificially- 
coated sand increased total clipping production over that of uncoated and naturally-coated 
sand (Table 4-14). The presence of peat increased total clipping production of uncoated 
sand. However, the inclusion of peat in naturally-coated sand did not increase total 



124 
clipping production relative to uncoated sand. In addition, there was no difference in 
total clipping production between naturally-coated sand with peat and uncoated sand with 
peat. In Phase II 2001 the inclusion of peat had increased total clipping production of all 
sand types, but in this field study it failed to increase total clipping production of 
naturally-coated sand. 
Potassium leaching during maintenance 

Although K fertilization ceased at the start of the maintenance period, the effects 
of weekly K fertilization over the 12 week establishment period were evident from 99 to 
125 DAP in that no difference in K leaching was observed among treatments during this 
time because all treatments were so flooded with K that there was an excess in all plots 
(Table 4-52). Greater K leaching was observed from artificially-coated sand with peat 
than other treatments 130 to 199 DAP, probably both due to greater inherent K content 
and to more K retained during the establishment period (Table 4-52). Throughout Phases 
I - III the presence of artificially-coated sand had decreased K leached. In the field study, 
however, because of the change in coating composition noted above, this observation was 
not made during the maintenance period. Heavy rain events occurred two days prior to 
the 140 DAP sampling date with approximately 20 cm of rainfall recorded. More K 
leached from naturally-coated sand with peat than uncoated sand and uncoated sand with 
peat at 140 DAP following those heavy rainfall events. In phase II 2001 naturally-coated 
sand, like artificially-coated sand, had decreased K leaching relative to uncoated sand 
(Table 4-15). During the maintenance period there was no difference in K leached 
between uncoated sand with peat and uncoated sand during the maintenance period. 



125 
With respect to total K leaching, more K leached from artificially-coated sand 
with peat than from the other treatments (Table 4-52). Greater total K leached from 
artificially-coated sand with peat can be attributed to the K content of the artificial coating 
(Table 4-38). In Phase I - III artificially-coated sand had decreased total K leached 
because of the CEC associated with the coating (Tables 4-7, 4-8, 4-15, 4-25). 

There was no difference in total K leached between uncoated sand, uncoated sand 
with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat (Table 4-52). 
Phosphorus leaching during maintenance 

As was the case with K, P fertilization was discontinued at the start of the 
maintenance period. No difference in P leached was observed between treatments from 
99 to 130 DAP. Two days prior to the 140 DAP sampling date approximately 20 cm of 
rainfall were recorded. Interestingly, at 140 DAP less P leached from uncoated sand than 
uncoated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat (Table 4-53), perhaps 
because P mineralized from peat and P retained during establishment was lost as a result 
of the heavy rainfall event. During establishment, uncoated sand had lost approximately 
31 % of the applied P, which reduced the quantity available for loss during the 
maintenance period since no other source of P was available. Despite greater soil-test P 
than uncoated sand with peat (Table 4-50), there was no difference in P leached from 
artificially-coated sand with peat than uncoated sand with peat even following heavy 
rainfall events recorded 138 and 139 DAP. Furthermore, percolate P concentration from 
artificially-coated sand with peat was < to that of naturally-coated sand with peat and 
uncoated sand with peat (Table A- 16). More P leached, however, from naturally-coated 



126 
sand with peat than artificially-coated sand with peat following the heavy rainfall events 
prior to the 140 DAP sampling. During Phases I - III naturally -coated sand had 
substantially decreased P leaching relative to artificially-coated sand (Tables 4-10, 4-18, 
4-29). 

Percolate P concentration during maintenance should be of concern. Even 
without additional P fertilization leachate P concentrations of all treatments exceeded 0.3 
mg L' 1 during maintenance (Petrovic, 1995)(Table A- 16). Although P is generally 
considered less mobile than other nutrients, such as N and K, several authors have noted 
excessive P leaching from established putting green root zones (Wong et al., 1998; 
Shuman,2001). 

There was no difference in total P leached among the treatments (Table 4-53). 
Relative K and P leached during maintenance 

As observed with total K leached (Table 4-52), there was no difference in relative 
K leached among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with 
peat during maintenance (Table 4-54). There was more total K leached from artificially- 
coated sand than the other treatments probably because of inherent K content. However, 
when normalizing for K content, there was no difference in relative K leached among 
artificially-coated sand with peat and the other treatments. 

While there was no difference in total P leached among the treatments during 
maintenance (Table 4-53), differences in relative P leached were observed (Table 4-54). 
Naturally-coated sand with peat had greater relative P leached than uncoated sand and 
artificially-coated sand with peat. There was no difference in relative P leached between 



127 
uncoated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat. 
K uptake during maintenance 

In general, the inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand increased K uptake 
during the maintenance period (Table 4-55). The presence of peat in uncoated sand 
increased K uptake relative to uncoated sand throughout maintenance with one exception 
at 200 DAP. The increase in K uptake of bermudagrass associated with the inclusion of 
peat in uncoated sand is best explained by the increase in clipping production associated 
with peat (Table 4-51) since there was no increase in tissue K concentration in the 
presence of peat (Table A- 17). During Phase III the presence of peat increased K uptake 
(Table 4-27) without increasing tissue K concentration (Table A-5). The inclusion of 
peat in naturally-coated sand, however, did not increase K uptake during maintenance 
relative to uncoated sand. 

The addition of artificially-coated sand to uncoated sand with peat increased K 
uptake from the uncoated sand with peat root zone during maintenance (Table 4-55). 
Although, in several cases, there was no statistical difference in clipping production 
(Table 4-51) and tissue K concentration (Table A- 17) between uncoated sand with peat 
and artificially-coated sand with peat, a general increase both in clipping production 
(Table 4-51) and tissue K concentration (Table A- 17) was observed between the two 
treatments during maintenance. 

The presence of natural sand grain coatings did not increase K uptake relative to 
uncoated sand during maintenance (Table 4-55). From 130 to 187 DAP greater K uptake 
was observed from uncoated sand with peat than naturally-coated sand with peat. As soil 



128 
K levels depleted, from 200 to 214 DAP, a difference in K uptake between uncoated sand 

with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat did not exist. In Phase II 2001 the presence 

of naturally-coated sand increased K uptake (Table 4-17) and tissue K concentration 

(Table A-3) relative to uncoated sand with or without peat. 

The inclusion of artificially-coated sand and peat increased total K uptake during 
maintenance (Table 4-55). The presence of peat in uncoated sand increased total K 
uptake 44 % relative to uncoated sand. In addition, artificially-coated sand grains 
increased total K uptake 89 % relative to uncoated sand, and increased total K uptake 3 1 
% over that of uncoated sand with peat. There was no difference in total K uptake 
between uncoated and naturally-coated sand with peat. 
Phosphorus uptake during maintenance 

The inclusion of artificially-coated sand and at times peat increased P uptake 
during establishment (Table 4-56). The addition of peat to naturally-coated sand only 
increased P uptake 214 DAP when soil P would be lowest (Table 4-56) because P 
fertilization was suspended following establishment. The presence of peat in uncoated 
sand, however, did increase P uptake from uncoated sand at every sampling date except 
200 DAP. The inclusion of artificially-coated sand increased P uptake relative to 
uncoated sand throughout the maintenance period. The increase in P uptake associated 
with artificially-coated sand and peat is best explained by increased clipping production 
(Table 4-51) and tissue P concentration (Table A- 18). In Phase II 2001 the presence of 
artificially-coated sand also increased P uptake (Table 4-20) and tissue P concentration 
relative to uncoated sand (Table A-4). 



129 
The addition of artificially-coated sand to uncoated sand with peat also increased 
P uptake relative to uncoated sand with peat 157, 200, and 214 DAP when soil-test P 
might have been depleting because of uptake and leaching. This increase in P uptake is 
due primarily to increased clipping production and in part increased tissue P 
concentration (Table A- 18). Finally, artificially-coated sand increased P uptake relative 
to naturally-coated sand with peat throughout maintenance. In Phase II 2000 artificially- 
coated sand increased P uptake (Table 4-20) and tissue P concentration (Table A-4) 
relative to naturally-coated sand. 

The inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand increased total P uptake during 
maintenance (Table 4-56). Both uncoated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with 
peat increased total P uptake by 50 % relative to uncoated sand. Artificially-coated sand 
with peat increased total P uptake 100% and 33% relative to uncoated sand alone and 
naturally-coated sand with peat. In both Phase II (2001) and III (2002) artificially-coated 
sand increased total P uptake relative to uncoated and naturally-coated sand (Table 4-20, 
4-29). 
Soil moisture content during maintenance 

Differences in moisture content were detected throughout the maintenance period 
(Table 4-57). Only artificially-coated sand with peat had a moisture content frequently > 
0.15. Bingham and Kohnke (1970) suggest, as a benchmark, that most successful sand- 
based root zones contain > 0.15 water by volume. At 140 DAP there was no difference in 
soil moisture between naturally-coated sand and artificially-coated sand perhaps because 
approximately eight cm of rainfall had been recorded 138 and 139 DAP. Naturally- 



130 
coated sand with peat had greater soil moisture content than uncoated sand with peat 127, 
140, 154, and 182 DAP. Uncoated sand had the lowest soil moisture at all sampling 
times during maintenance. Even after more than 20.5 cm of rainfall had been recorded 
from 138-139 DAP volumetric moisture content of uncoated sand remained the lowest 
with only seven percent (0.07) measured 140 DAP (Table 4-57). 
Selected chemical properties of root zone materials at the conclusion of the maintenance. 

The pH of values of all treatments at the end of the maintenance period decreased 
relative to pH values measured upon completion of the grow-in period (Table 4-58). The 
decrease in pH can be attributed to the acidifying nitrogen source (ammonium sulfate) 
used during maintenance fertilization. Uncoated sand had the highest pH at the end of 
maintenance, just as it was highest at the conclusion of the establishment period. In the 
uncoated sand treatment, which had a very high pH (8.0) at the start of the maintenance 
phase, the acidifying effect of N fertilization was partially balanced by irrigation with a 
basic water source common to south Florida (Snyder et al., 1979). The pH of artificially- 
coated sand with peat was slightly greater than both uncoated sand and peat and naturally- 
coated sand with peat, but was substantially lower than the excessively high starting value 
(Table 4-38). There was no difference in pH between uncoated sand with peat and 
naturally-coated sand with peat. 

There were differences in CEC among all four root zone media at the conclusion 
of the maintenance period (Table 4-58). Artificially-coated sand with peat continued to 
exhibit the highest CEC of all treatments with a value > 6 cmol kg" 1 , which is a CEC 
value suggested as a benchmark for sand based root zone mixes (Petri and Petrovic, 



131 
2001). Furthermore, the CEC of artificially-coated sand with peat appears to have 
remained constant throughout the field study. The CEC of uncoated sand with peat was 
greater than that of uncoated sand alone, and of naturally-coated sand with peat. In 
addition, the CEC of uncoated sand with peat increased during the field study, perhaps 
due to an increase in organic matter content. Surprisingly, the CEC of naturally-coated 
sand decreased relative to pre-construction values. This decrease in the CEC of naturally- 
coated sand may have resulted from elluviation of poorly cemented sand grain coatings 
which were observed in percolate water during sampling throughout establishment and 
maintenance. Furthermore, the physical stresses imposed on naturally-coated sand during 
the mining and sizing process may have contributed to loosening of sand grain coatings. 
The CEC of uncoated sand remained at zero during the field study. 

Both Pa and Pw soil P decreased for all treatments (except for Pw in artificially- 
coated sand) during the maintenance period when no P fertilizer was applied (Table 4- 
58). Guertal (2001 ) also observed a rapid decline in extractable soil-test P in a USGA- 
type putting green three months following P fertilization with additional P fertilization 
necessary in order to meet soil-test recommendations. Artificially-coated sand Pa and Pw 
generally changed only slightly during the maintenance period relative to post- 
establishment levels (Table 4-50). Although there was no difference in P leached 
between artificially-coated sand and the other treatments during maintenance (Table 4- 
53), Pa and Pw of artificially-coated sand was much greater than that of uncoated sand, 
uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat. There was no difference in 
Pa among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat. 



132 
However, less Pw was measured in uncoated sand than uncoated sand with peat and 
naturally -coated sand with peat at the end of the maintenance period. 

Despite the lack of K fertilization throughout the maintenance period, soil-test K 
remained similar to that measured at the conclusion of the establishment period, with the 
exception of artificially-coated sand with peat. Although artificially-coated sand with 
peat continued to leach K, as was shown in the leachate data (Table 4-52), artificially- 
coated sand still had the highest soil-test K at the conclusion of the maintenance period. 
There were no differences in soil-test K among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, 
and naturally-coated sand. 

Unlike K, soil test Ca levels of all treatments, except artificially -coated sand with 
peat, increased during the maintenance period, probably as a result of Ca in the irrigation 
water. Soil test Ca of artificially -coated sand, however, remained the greatest of all 
treatments despite having a lower soil test Ca value relative to establishment. There was 
no difference in soil Ca among, uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally- 
coated sand. 

Soil test Mg of all treatments decreased relative to pre-maintenance levels. 
Artificially-coated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat had greater soil test 
Mg than uncoated sand and uncoated sand with peat. There was no difference in soil test 
Mg between uncoated sand and uncoated sand with peat. 
Selected physical properties of root zone materials at the conclusion of the maintenance. 

The inclusion of peat had the greatest impact on physical properties of the root 
zone mixes (Table 4-59). Uncoated sand without peat had the highest K^,, and bulk 



133 
density, and the lowest moisture holding capacity. There was no difference in K^, 
between uncoated sand with peat and artificially-coated sand. The laboratory method 
detected no difference in moisture holding capacity among uncoated sand with peat, 
naturally-, and artificially-coated sand with peat even though differences were detected 
throughout the maintenance phase using the Theta-probe (Table 4-57). In addition, 
Theta-probe volumetric moisture measurements were generally less than those observed 
using physical analytical methods but the same trends were observed. It should be noted 
that the laboratory method involves an equilibrium at 30 cm tension. By contrast, in the 
field turfgrass is withdrawing moisture, and there is evaporation. Therefore, the soil 
moisture could be lower, and differences among the root zone media could be better 
displayed. There was no difference in the bulk density between naturally- and artificially- 
coated sand. 



134 

Table 4-51 Influence of root zone media on clipping production during the Field Study I 
maintenance period. 



Root zone 






Days after planting 








130 


143 


157 187 200 


214 


Total 








.9 






Uncoated 


1.6dt 


1.9b 


4.9b 19.9ab 12.7b 


27.8b 


68.8c 


Unc. + Peat 


3.0b 


3.0a 


7.7a 26.2ab 13.0b 


32.0b 


84.9b 


Nat. + Peat 


2.4c 


2.1b 


5.5b 19.1b 13.5b 


31.6b 


74.3bc 


Art. + Peat 


3.7a 


3.6a 


9.0a 28.1a 16.2a 


39.1a 


99.8a 



t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-52 Influence of root zone media on potassium leaching as a function of time 

during maintenance field study I 2001 -2002. 

Root zone Days after planting 

99 118 125 130 140 154 167 199 Total 

g m 2 

Uncoated 1.62at 0.05a 0.08a 0.05b 0.64c 0.42b 0.11b 0.04b 3.19b 
Unc. + Peat 0.87a 0.05a 0.03a 0.13b 0.62c 0.18b 0.04b 0.02b 1.78b 
Nat. + Peat 1.52a 0.09a 0.13a 0.53b 2.18b 0.40b 0.10b 0.04b 5.00b 
Art. + Peat 1.91a 0.09a 0.20a 1.43a 6.75a 2.99a 1.43a 0.91a 15.71a 

t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-53 Influence of root zone media on phosphorus leaching as a function of time 
during maintenance field study I 2001 -2002. 



Root zone 




Days after planting 






99 118 


125 130 140 154 167 199 


Total 






_-> 




Uncoated 


0.24at 0.02a 


0.04a 0.18a 0.25c 0.08b 0.03b 0.01a 


0.91a 


Unc. + Peat 


0.44a 0.01a 


0.02a 0.13a 0.88ab 0.1 7ab 0.04b 0.00a 


1.60a 


Nat. + Peat 


0.65a 0.07a 


0.06a 0.16a 1.41a 0.33a 0.18a 0.08a 


2.94a 


Art. + Peat 


0.54a 0.02a 


0.05a 0.16a 0.72bc 0.1 9ab 0.08ab 0.04a 


1.81a 



t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



135 

Table 4-54 Potassium and P leached during Field Study I maintenance relative to total K 

and P added and soil-testt K and P prior to Field Study I maintenance. 

K P 



Uncoated sand 
Uncoated sand with peat 
Naturally-coated sand with peat 
Artificially-coated sand with peat 

t Soil-test K and P are based on 30 cm root zone. 
X Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 






- % - - - 




65aJ 




lib 


33a 




20ab 


96a 




34a 


56a 




2b 



136 

Table 4-55 Influence of root zone media on bermudagrass K uptake as a function of time 

during field study I maintenance. 

Root zone Days after planting 



130 143 157 187 200 214 Total 













- g m' 2 - 










Uncoated 


22.0dt 


23.5b 85.7c 269.6c 


172.5b 


363.7c 


0.9c 


Unc. + Peat 


48.3b 


46.1a 146.7b 373.8b 


169.0b 


485.4b 


1.3b 


Nat. + Peat 


30.5c 


28.6b 96.1c 267.8c 


171.2b 


433.0bc 


1.0c 


Art. + Peat 


61.6a 


55.0a 182.4a 478.3a 


256.2a 


636.1a 


1.7a 



tAny means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-56 Influence of root zone media on bermudagrass P uptake as a function of time 

during field study I maintenance. 

Root zone Days after planting 

130 143 157 187 200 214 Total 









- - - P mp m" 2 






- g m" 2 - 










Uncoated 


5.9bt 


6.2b 


23.6c 64.5c 


46.4b 


98.0c 


0.2c 


Unc. + Peat 


13.7a 


11.7a 


42.4b 95.2ab 


48.5b 


128.2b 


0.3b 


Nat. + Peat 


8.1b 


7.3b 


28.6c 73.5bc 


55.5b 


136.3b 


0.3b 


Art. + Peat 


15.2a 


13.5a 


51.1a 113.4a 


68.9a 


166.4a 


0.4a 



tAny means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

Table 4-57 Influence of root zone media on volumetric soil moisture content on various 

dates during maintenance, field study I. 

Root zone Days after plantingt 

127 140 154 158 182 197 

LL 1 

Uncoated 0.06d| 0.07c 0.07d 0.04c 0.1 Od 0.08c 
Unc. + Peat 0.12c 0.12b 0.13c 0.11b 0.16c 0.12b 
Nat. + Peat 0.13b 0.15a 0.14b 0.12b 0.18b 0.13b 
Art. + Peat 0.15a 0.15a 0.16a 0.14a 0.21a 0.15a 

tlrrigation was applied once daily. 

jAny means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



137 



Table 4-58 Selected chemical properties of root zone media upon completion of 
maintenance field study I. 



Type pH CEC Pa Pw K Ca Mg 

cmol c kg" 1 mg L" 1 

UncoatedSand 6.8a t O.Od 8.0b 2.4c 7.0b 135.6b 5.0b 

Uncoated Sand and Peat 5.1c 5.5b 8.3b 4.1b 8.7b 173.8b 9.8b 

Naturally-Coated Sand and Peat 5.2c 4.8c 12.7b 4.8b 7.8b 200.4b 21.1a 

Artificially-Coated Sand and Peat 5.7b 6.2a 345.7a 16.3a 21.1a 399.7a 26.3a 

t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-59 Physical properties of root-zone media upon termination of field study I. 

Root-zone K^, 9 V cp Bn 

- -cm h" 1 - - 
Uncoated 178.4at 11.8b 1.76a 

Uncoated with peat 120.6b 18.3a 1.65b 

Naturally with peat 100.9c 20.0a 1.61c 

Artificially with peat 112.7bc 20.0a 1.58c 

tAny means followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's 
Multiple Range Test. 



138 
Field Study II 2002 

A second field study was conducted to reinvestigate the effect of coated sands and 
peat on turfgrass growth, P and K leaching/uptake, and root zone properties. In Field 
Study II treatments investigated remained the same but climate and fertilization differed 
from that of Field Study I. During Field Study II grow-in was initiated during early 
Summer and maintenance during Fall. In addition, K and P fertilization were reduced by 
50 % during grow-in so as to better investigate root zone influence on turfgrass growth 
and nutrient retention. 

Establishment 
Selected physical properties of root-zone materials prior to establishment 

The inclusion of peat had the greatest influence on root zone properties (Table 4- 
60). Uncoated sand had a K^, greatly exceeding the accelerated range of 30-60 cm h" 1 
specified for putting green root zone mixes by the USGA (USGA Green Section Staff, 
1993). There was no difference in K^, among the other treatments. Similar ¥^ al results 
were measured prior to Field Study I establishment (Table 4-37). Peat increased 
volumetric water holding capacity (microspore space) and decreased bulk density. The 
inclusion of artificially-coated sand increased water holding capacity (0 V ) relative to 
uncoated sand (both with peat), whereas, an increase in water holding capacity was not 
detected between naturally-coated sand with peat and uncoated sand with peat. In the 
Field Study I establishment study, naturally-coated sand had a greater 9 V than uncoated 
sand with peat as determined by physical analysis (Table 4-37). 



139 
Selected chemical properties of root zone materials prior to establishment 

Cation exchange levels and soil-test values were measured prior to establishment 
(Table 4-61). Soil-test values were generally greater than those measured prior to Field 
Study I (Table 4-38). It is important to note that while new root zone material was added 
to each plot, it was incorporated with existing root zone material (see materials and 
methods), thereby accounting for the increase in soil-test values. 

Uncoated sand with peat had the lowest pH, with no difference in pH between 
uncoated sand, naturally-coated sand with peat, and artificially-coated sand with peat. The 
pH values were generally higher than those measured at the completion of Field Study I 
maintenance (Table 4-58) and generally reflect those values measured prior to Field 
Study I establishment (Table 4-38). 

Soil-test P determined prior to Field Study II were generally greater than Field 
Study I preconstruction levels (Table 4-61). Artificially-coated sand had the highest Pa 
with no difference in Pa measured among the other treatments. In addition, artificially- 
coated sand had more Pw than the other treatments. More Pw was measured in naturally- 
coated sand than uncoated sand and uncoated sand with peat. There was no difference in 
Pw between uncoated sand and uncoated sand with peat. 

Soil-test K levels determined prior to Field Study II were generally like those 
levels measured prior to Field Study I (Table 4-38). Similar to previous soil-test K 
results, artificially-coated sand with peat had the highest soil-test K. Artificially-coated 
sand with peat soil-test K, however, was less than that measured prior to Field Study I 
(Table 4-38) perhaps as a result of mixing and dilution with existing artificially-coated 



140 
sand with peat material. There was no difference in soil-test K among uncoated sand, 
uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat. 

Because of mixing with existing root zone material, CEC values better resembled 
values measured following Field Study I maintenance (Table 4-58) than preconstruction 
Field Study I (Table 4-38). CEC ranged from 0.0 - 6.2 cmol kg' with artificially-coated 
sand with peat having the highest CEC value and uncoated sand the lowest. Unlike CEC 
values determined prior to Field Study I, the CEC of uncoated sand with peat was greater 
than that of naturally-coated sand with peat at the start of Field Study II probably because 
of mixing with existing root zone material during reconstruction of experimental plots. 
'Tifdwarf coverage during establishment 

'Tifdwarf establishment was increased by the inclusion of peat and artificially- 
coated sand (Table 4-62). Root zones with peat reached approximately 100 % coverage 
several weeks before the uncoated sand treatment. The increase in 'Tifdwarf coverage in 
the presence of peat likely resulted from increased moisture retention associated with 
properties of peat (McCoy, 1991, 1992; Bigelow, 2000). Just as peat served to increase 
establishment, the presence of artificially-coated sand further increased establishment 
beyond that of uncoated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat. 'Tifdwarf 
growing in the artificially-coated sand with peat root zone reached almost full coverage 
by 34 DAP while uncoated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat required 
during approximately 55 DAP. In general, there was no difference between uncoated 
sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat. 



141 
Many similarities in Tifdwarf establishment exist between Field Study I (Table 
4-40) and Field Study II (Table 4-62) despite only half the P and K fertilization in Field 
Study II. In both studies the inclusion of artificially-coated sand increased establishment 
rate. The inclusion of peat also increased establishment rate. The slowest establishment 
was observed in the uncoated sand root zone mix. In both studies there was no difference 
between uncoated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat. Overall 
establishment rate, however, was more rapid in Field Study II because of the early 
Summer grow-in period versus the Fall grow-in period of Field Study I. 
Clipping production during establishment 

Clipping production during establishment reflected establishment rate 
observations (Table 4-62) in that the inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand 
influenced 'Tifdwarf growth (Table 4-63). The presence of artificially-coated sand 
increased clipping production relative to uncoated sand from 28 to 83 DAP. In addition, 
the inclusion of peat increased clipping production relative to uncoated sand from 34 to 
83 DAP. In general, the inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand also increased 
clipping production during Field Study I establishment. 

The inclusion of artificially-coated sand increased clipping production over the 
treatments with peat alone (Table 4-63). Artificially-coated sand with peat increased 
clipping production relative to uncoated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with 
peat 28 to 55 DAP. An increase in clipping production beyond 55 DAP was not observed 
likely because there was little difference in coverage between uncoated sand with peat, 
naturally-coated sand with peat, and artificially-coated sand with peat from 55 to 69 DAP 



142 
(Table 4-62). In general, during Field Study I establishment there was little difference in 
clipping production between uncoated sand with peat and artificially-coated sand with 
peat because of the heavy fertilization and the poorer late season grow-in conditions 
(Table 4-41). 

There was no difference in clipping production between naturally-coated sand 
with peat and uncoated sand with peat during the establishment period (Table 4-63). 

The inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand increased total clipping 
production (Table 4-63). Peat increased total clipping production approximately 49 % 
relative to uncoated sand without peat. The inclusion of artificially -coated sand increased 
total clipping production 89 % and 27 % relative to uncoated sand and uncoated sand 
with peat. In the Phase II glasshouse study, the presence of peat and artificially-coated 
sand also increased total clipping production relative to uncoated sand. 
Potassium leached during establishment 

The inclusion of artificially-coated sand had the greatest impact on K leached 
during establishment (Table 4-64). The addition of artificially-coated sand to uncoated 
sand with peat increased K leached relative to uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, 
and naturally-coated sand. More K leaching from artificially-coated sand probably was 
due to the high soluble K content of artificially-coated sand (Table 4-61). The inclusion 
of peat to uncoated sand and naturally-coated sand did not decrease K leaching relative to 
uncoated sand alone except at 69 and 90 DAP. In addition, the presence of natural sand 
grain coatings did not reduce K leached. In Field Study I the inclusion of peat & presence 
of naturally-coated sand didn't decrease K leaching during establishment (Table 4-42). 



143 

The addition of artificially-coated sand increased total K leached while the 
inclusion of peat and presence of naturally -coated sand did not reduce total K leached 
relative to uncoated sand (Table 4-64). There was no difference in total K leached among 
uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat despite wide 
differences in CEC (Table 4-61). More than one third of applied K leached from 
uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat. In Field 
Study I there was no difference in total K leached among uncoated sand, uncoated sand 
with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat (Table 4-42) with more than one third of 
applied K lost. 
Phosphorus leached during establishment 

Substantial P leached from all root zone media during establishment (Table 4-65). 
Relatively large quantities of P leached from all treatments, especially during the first 47 
DAP in which approximately 58 cm of rainfall was recorded (Table 4-65). In addition, 
from 3 to 47 DAP percolate P concentration of all treatments exceeded 0.3 mg L" 1 (Table 
A-20). While P leaching decreased from 55 to 76 DAP when rainfall rates decreased, 
high P losses were observed 83 and 90 DAP when over 8 cm of rainfall was recorded. 

The inclusion of peat in uncoated sand decreased total P leached relative to 
uncoated sand alone (Table 4-65) during establishment. Furthermore, less total P leached 
from uncoated sand with peat than naturally-coated sand and artificially-coated sand with 
peat during establishment. Approximately 35 % of applied P leached from uncoated 
sand, naturally-coated sand with peat, and artificially-coated sand with peat versus 23 % 



144 
for uncoated sand with peat. In Field Study I, no difference in total P leached among 
treatments was not observed perhaps because of high P fertilization which may have 
masked differences among the treatments (Table 4-43). 
Relative K and P leached during establishment 

More total K leached from artificially-coated sand with peat during establishment, 
however, when differences in inherent K content were accounted for, no differences were 
observed among artificially-coated sand with peat, uncoated sand, uncoated sand with 
peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat (Table 4-66). Moreover, there was no 
difference in relative K leached among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and 
naturally-coated sand with peat during establishment. 

Differences in relative P leached were observed during establishment (Table 4- 
66). P leaching, relative to the amount of added and inherent P in the root zone, was 
greatest from uncoated sand and least from artificially-coated sand. During 
establishment, less total P leached from uncoated sand with peat than uncoated sand and 
naturally-coated sand (Table 4-65) with the same observations made with regard to 
relative P leached during establishment. Similar trends in relative P leached were 
observed during Field Study I establishment (Table 4-44). 
Potassium uptake during establishment 

The inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand increased K uptake during 
establishment (Table 4-67). From 34 to 76 DAP the addition of peat to uncoated and 
naturally-coated increased K uptake. The increased K uptake from uncoated and 
naturally -coated sand with peat is the result of both increased clipping production (Table 



145 
4-63) and increased tissue K concentration (Table A-21). The inclusion of artificially- 
coated sand in uncoated sand with peat further increased K uptake relative to uncoated 
sand from 28 to 83 DAP during establishment. The ability of artificially-coated sand to 
increase both clipping production (Table 4-63) and tissue K concentration (Table A-21) 
together improved K uptake during establishment relative to uncoated sand. In Field 
Study I the inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand also increased K uptake during 
establishment (Table 4-46). 

In general, there was no difference in K uptake between uncoated sand with peat 
and naturally-coated sand with peat (Table 4-67) during establishment. Only on 69 and 
76 DAP did uncoated sand with peat increase K uptake over that of naturally-coated sand 
with peat. Increased K uptake from uncoated sand with peat 69 and 76 DAP relative to 
naturally-coated sand with peat was the result of a combination of increased clipping 
production and tissue K concentration (Table A-21) even though neither observation was 
statistically significant alone. In Field Study I, uncoated sand with peat increased K 
uptake relative to naturally-coated sand with peat throughout establishment (Table 4-46). 

The inclusion of artificially-coated sand in uncoated sand with peat increased K. 
uptake relative to uncoated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat through 
much of establishment (Table 4-67). From 28 to 62 DAP greater K uptake was observed 
from artificially-coated sand with peat than from either uncoated sand with peat or 
naturally-coated sand with peat. Furthermore, 69 and 76 DAP the improvement in K 
uptake relative to naturally-coated sand continued. There was no difference between 
uncoated sand with peat and artificially-coated sand with peat from 69 to 90 because there 



146 
was no difference in clipping production during the late stages of establishment. Higher 
tissue K concentration from Tifdwarf establishing in artificially-coated sand with peat 
than uncoated sand with peat was observed from 28 to 41 DAP (Table A-21). The 
elevated soil K content of artificially-coated sand with peat likely provided an immature 
root system readily available K, thereby contributing to the increase in K uptake during 
the early stages of establishment. »^— ' ■*---'- 

While there was no difference in total K uptake between uncoated sand with peat 
and naturally -coated sand with peat, the addition of artificially-coated sand to uncoated 
sand with peat increased total K uptake relative to uncoated sand, uncoated sand with 
peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat (Table 4-67). Readily available K (Table 4-61), 
coupled with greater moisture retention (Table 4-70), accelerated growth (Table 4-63) and 
increased tissue K concentration (Table A-21) of 'Tifdwarf establishing in artificially- 
coated sand with peat. Approximately 12 % of applied K was taken up from uncoated 
sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat. Uncoated sand had the lowest total K 
uptake compromising only 7 % of applied K. Poor nutrient (Table 4-61) and moisture 
retention (Table 4-70) characteristics of uncoated sand resulted in slower growth (Table 
4-63) and lower tissue K concentration (Table A-21) negatively impacting total K uptake 
during establishment. - - 

Phosphorus uptake during establishment 

The inclusion of peat and artificially coated sand increased P uptake through 
much of establishment (Table 4-68).»From 34 to 76 DAP peat increased P uptake 
becauscof increased clipping production (Table 4-63) and to some extent increased tissue 



147 
P concentration (Table A-22). Increased P uptake relative to uncoated sand was observed 
from the presence of artificially-coated sand from 28 to 83 DAP. Artificially-coated sand 
with peat increased tissue P concentration relative to uncoated sand 28 to 47 DAP (Table 
A-22). The addition of peat and artificially-coated sand to uncoated sand increased P 
uptake throughout Field Study I establishment (Table 4-47). 

There was no difference in P uptake between uncoated sand with peat and 
naturally-coated sand with peat during establishment (Table 4-68). Since the presence of 
naturally-coated sand did not increase either clipping production (Table 4-63) or tissue P 
concentration (Table A-22), greater P uptake from naturally-coated sand relative to 
uncoated sand with peat was not observed. The negative influence of naturally-coated 
sand with peat on P uptake observed in Field Study I establishment (Table 4-47) was not 
observed during Field Study II establishment. 

The addition of artificially-coated sand to uncoated sand with peat increased P 
uptake early in establishment relative to uncoated sand with peat and naturally-coated 
sand with peat (Table 4-68). From 28 to 62 DAP greater P uptake was observed from 
artificially-coated sand with peat than uncoated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand 
with peat because of increased clipping production (Table 4-63) and tissue P 
concentration (Table A-22). From 69 to 90 DAP no difference was observed. 

The inclusion of artificially-coated sand and peat increased total P uptake during • 
establishment (Table 4-68). The lowest total P uptake was observed in uncoated sand. 
There was no difference in total P uptake between uncoated sand with peat and naturally- 



148 
coated sand with peat. In Field Study I establishment uncoated sand with peat increased 
total P uptake 33 % over that of naturally-coated sand with peat (Table 4-47). 
Artificially-coated sand increased total P uptake 35 % relative to uncoated sand with peat 
and naturally-coated sand with peat. Increased total P uptake resulted because of the 
combination of increased clipping production (Table 4-62) and tissue P concentration 
(Table A-22) of 'Tifdwarf growing in the P rich artificially-coated sand root zone. By 
comparison, in Field Study I establishment, when twice as much fertilizer P was applied, 
there was no difference between uncoated sand with peat and artificially-coated sand with 
peat (Table 4-40). 
Relative K and P uptake during establishment 

Potassium uptake, relative to the amount of K added and inherent in the root zone, 
was greatest in the presence of peat (Table 4-69). Both uncoated sand with peat and 
naturally-coated sand with peat had greater relative K uptake than uncoated sand alone. 
Although total K uptake during establishment was greatest from artificially-coated sand 
with peat (Table 4-67), relative K uptake was the least from artificially-coated sand with 
peat. 

Greater P uptake, relative to added and inherent root zone quantity, was greatest 
from uncoated sand with peat (Table 4-69). There was no difference in relative P uptake 
between uncoated sand alone and naturally-coated sand with peat (Table 4-69), while 
total P uptake was greater from naturally-coated sand with peat than uncoated sand during 



149 
establishment. Even though total P uptake was the greatest from artificially-coated sand 
with peat during establishment (Table 4-68), the lowest relative P uptake was observed 
from artificially-coated sand with peat (Table 4-69). 
Volumetric moisture content during establishment 

The addition of peat and artificially-coated sand increased soil moisture content in 
the field during establishment (Table 4-70). Artificially-coated sand with peat had the 
highest moisture content during establishment and uncoated sand had the lowest moisture 
content. Naturally-coated sand with peat had greater soil moisture than uncoated sand 
with peat during the early stages of establishment but a difference between the two 
treatments was not detected by the end of the establishment period. 

Soil moisture values measured during establishment using the Theta-probe were 
less than those determined using physical analysis techniques (Table 4-60). This 
probably occurred because in the laboratory the moisture content was measured as a 30 
cm negative pressure equilibrium value, whereas in the field moisture probably was lower 
due both to evaporation and plant uptake. Theta-probe measurements in the field, 
however, were similar to physical analysis measurements in the lab in terms of 
identifying relative differences in soil moisture among the treatments. Both techniques 
showed that artificially-coated sand with peat had the highest soil moisture content, the 
inclusion of peat increased soil moisture, and that uncoated sand had the lowest soil 
moisture. 



150 
Selected chemical properties of root zone mixes at the conclusion of establishment 

The inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand influenced soil pH (Table 4-71). 
Poorly buffered uncoated sand had the highest soil pH upon completion of establishment. 
There was no difference in soil pH among uncoated sand with peat, naturally-coated sand 
with peat, and artificially-coated sand with peat. Soil pH of all treatments generally 
decreased during establishment (Table 4-61, 4-71). 

The inclusion of artificially -coated sand increased soil Pa and Pw upon 
completion of establishment (Table 4-71). There was no difference in soil Pa or Pw 
among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat. 
Following Field Study I establishment, artificially-coated sand with peat also had the 
highest soil Pa and Pw with no difference detected between uncoated sand, uncoated sand 
with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat (Table 4-50). In both field studies, high 
soil P was due to the inherent P content of artificially-coated sand. 

The inclusion of artificially-coated sand increased soil K (Table 4-71). There was, 
however, no difference among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally- 
coated sand with peat despite far greater CEC of uncoated sand with peat and naturally- 
coated sand with peat relative to uncoated sand. Inherent K content and CEC contributed 
to greater soil-test K of artificially-coated sand. In Field Study I establishment uncoated 
sand had lower soil-test K than uncoated sand with peat and artificially-coated sand with 
peat (Table 4-50). 



151 

Table 4-60 Physical properties of root-zone media prior to construction field study II 

Root-zone K^ 9^ (J>bd 

- -cm h' 1 - - - g cm" 3 - 

Uncoated 85. Oat 0.10c 1.76a 

Uncoated with peat 47.5b 0.14b 1.70b 

Naturally with peat 48.7b 0.15b 1.64c 

Artificially with peat 42.6b 0.17a 1.61c 

t Any means followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's 
Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-61 Selected chemical properties of root zone media used in field study II prior to 
construction. 



Root zone 


pH CEC 


Pa Pw 


K Ca 


Mg 




cmol c kg" 


i 


■mgL- 1 










Uncoated Sand 


8.2at O.Od 


2.6b 0.9c 


3.8b 306.2c 


3.3b 


Uncoated Sand and Peat 


6.0b 5.6b 


5.6b 2.1c 


4.8b 337.4c 


6.8b 


Naturally-Coated Sand and Peat 


7.9a 4.8c 


17.0b 5.6b 


4.3b 517.6b 


75.3a 


Artificially-Coated Sand and Peat 


8.4a 6.2a 


332.3a 14.1a 


208.5a 661.4a 


89.5a 



t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-62 Influence of root zone media on 'Tifdwarf coverage as a function of time 

after planting field study II 2002. 

Root zone Days after planting 

13 19 26 34 40 47 55 62 69 



Uncoated 


8.8bt 


8.8c 


22.5c 


30.0c 


- - - % - 
38.8d 


35.0c 53.8b 80.0b 92.5b 


Unc. + Peat 


12.5b 


18.8b 


46.2b 


61.2b 


72.5c 


92.5b 98.8a 100.0a 100.0a 


Nat. + Peat 


11.5b 


18.8b 


46.2b 


62.5b 


78.8b 


95.0b 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a 


Art. + Peat 


26.2a 


37.5a 


77.5a 


95.0a 


98.8a 


100.0a 100.0a 100.0a 100.0a 



t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



O 

o 



3 
+-* 

US 

BO 

C 



£ 



o 

c 
c 



ea 



c 
_o 

'■£3 
O 

3 

■a 

o 
s 

Q. 
en 
C 

'a. 
.& 

"o 

C 


2 

1 

<L> 

3 
O 
N 

o 

o 



u 
u 

c 
u 

3 

5 






H 



o 
H 



o 

On 






v© 



ON 
N© 



U £ £ (9 

O O; I s ; 00 

■* wi (N a 

OO M N ^ 



— 

co 

CO 

IS 

Q 



(N 

v© 



in 






co CO 

© r^ 

X) CO 

■"O" — 

(N — 

CM CO 

X) CO 

■* © 

CN ON 



CO 
On 

m 

co 

CN 



152 



CO CO 

r^ oo 

K ON 



X CO CO eO 
— ; ^t ; r-; V© 

(N r~ u-i \d 



X) CO CO CO 

NO ON ■* t-- 

'e cN iri in so 
oo 

O X X CO 

O f^i On ON 

— ; rt Tt vb 






oo 



u 

00 


X 

m 


X 


CO 


o 


m 


m 


t-~ 


u 


X 


X 

o 


CO 

00 



onto 






X X CO 

r-- co (N 



O — — r}- 

4- 

X X X CO 

(N f-- © — ; 

— C-i CO — ^ 



o 
C 

o 

N 

— < 
O 

o 



•n S S 


*-* 

CO 


4J ^ CU 


a, 


CO + + 
O . + 


+ 


O O *J 

C C CO 


tf 


D D Z 


< 



c 
p 

I 

— > 
CO 

u 



M 

to 

o 
c 

s 

S 



U 

X 

■*— » 

x 

U 



a 



3 "5 

3 H 
S 00 

ll 

3 

6 2 

11 

.3 OT 

5 s 

to g 
^ 5 

E Q 

C X) 

< ^ 

^ © 

o* 

A 



O 

o 

CN 



-a 
3 

co 

<a 

00 

c 



u 

CO 

u 

£ 



c 

o 

c 

a 

CO 
00 

c 

o 
a 
u 



co 
o 

H 



o 



00 



nO 



ON 

no 



NO 






so 
§ 



a 

CO 
>> 

eo 




p 

'O- 



CO 

i 

o 

Q, 

3 

o 

CO 

u 

E 

c 
o 

N 
■^^ 



o 



u 

o 
5 
u 

3 

c 

■4 

x 

Si 

H 



CM 



oo 



cn 



r-i 



CJ 
C 
O 
N 

■4-J 

o 

o 



X x 

00 r~ 

On 00 

00 NO 



CO X 
On (N 

© © 

X) X) 
■* (N 
m en 

d d 

co co 

On CN 

o o 
d d 
x o 

O en 
cn o 

d d 



.c eo 

£ a 

ON «« 

si 

O ON 

— <n 

d d 

x CO 
CN On 

d — 
co co 

o — < 
d d 

o CO 
■^- ON 
o en 

d d 

x x 

co x CO co 

in On O On 

CN © CN ■<* 

©odd 



co co co co 
en r» 00 On 
— O O CN 

©odd 



x x x CO 

t-- en en cn 

cn — « — r- 

© © © © 



X X X CO 

•- — O — i <* 

s «-; «-^ — ; «n 

oo d d d d 

X X X CO 

m in no «/o 

t_ a * Tt 
dodn 



x x x CO 

f~ — ■> m NO 

in to- on r-. 

© — © en 

X X X CO 

On On NO O 

m r- — — • 



CO 



XXX 
O t^ n ffi 
in en en T3- 

d d d — 

xxx 



o W*l t~- 

r~ oo m 

— do 



x 

CO X X CO 

0O O On — 

r-; no en cn 

— d d (N 



-a 
u 

CO 

O 

y 

a 

D 



CO 
Cj 
3. 


CO 

"J 

a. 


+ 


+ 


cj 




c 


ed 


D 


Z 



CO 

CJ 

3. 
+ 



3 

>» 
3 

o 



y 

X 
X 

-a 
p 

o 



8 CO 
3 H 

8 a 
I § 

I £ 

« .2 

<u c 

II 

.-3 co 
* 3 

a S 

E Q 

+^ o 
d 

A 



<N 

o 
© 
<n 



-o 

3 
CO 

"3. 
is 

00 

3 



CJ 

CO 
CJ 



o 

3 

_o 

*3 

y 

3 
I 

CO 
co 
CO 

00 

3 

X 

o 

CO 
U 



C 
co 
O 
X 

c 

3 

o 

CO 

S 

3 

O 
N 

O 

5 



o 

u 
y 

3 
U 

c 



X 
M 

H 



u 

CO 

CO 

I- 



00 



rN] 



153 



CO 



CO -3 CO CO 






»n no no -"O- 






m «-; <r> rsi 






ri in (*i m 






X X 






< CO X CO CO 






i o en m oo 






i Tt — <N — 






• d d d d 






1 x o 






1 co cj X CO 






i on m r- r"» 






i T ra (N <o 






> <6 ci d> ci 






co co co co 


•*^ 




1 — o — m 


3 




> o o o p 


s 




J d d d d 


>s 




, CO CO CO CO 




NO (N NO W) 


^ 




' o o o p 




\ ci <zi ci di 


>% 




■ x X 


lo 




i CO X CO CO 


u 




. CO cN r~ On 


'3 




1 — o p p 


CO 




, d d> c> d 


1 

CO 
#4 




■ X U CO CO 




i (N — m 5f 


O 




, o o o p 


3 




i d d d d 


=0 




■ X X co CO 




■ »n r> no no 


CJ 




i — — ; (N CJ 


■^-' 




< d d d d 


_« 




! ^ x x 


CD 




rt X CO CO CO 


c 




'- OO 00 Tj- tN 

Eoq-- 


B 




CO 




oo d d d d 


CJ 




1 X 


X 




i X X CO CO 


X 




i — in co tj- 




, m rn Ti- in 




■ d d d d 


13 




■ X X co co 






■ m o on o 




i rsi m m ■* 


5 




> d d d d 




X 


B 


CO 


1 X X eo co 


E 

3 


U 


1 ON NO CO NO 


H 


i co en no rj- 


"5 

CJ 


1> 


; d d d d 


C^) 


1 co X co co 


E 


i 


i in — On CN 


CO 


CJ 


i *— • ~^ CN ^^ 


CO 


1 d d d d 


U 

X 


.E- 

'■«— • 


■ co co co co 


-«— • 


3 


. NO — On 00 


3 


2 


| rt M M fN 


X 


, d d d d 


■*— » 


CO 


'-(-OX 


'^ 


C 


i co X eo o 


w 


CO 


. in no •<3- — " 


§ 


o 


, rf — en — 


c 


i d d d d 


£ Q 




>> 


>, 


•n S S « 
| ^ (X £ 


8 

< 

+- 


X 

m 

O 


CO + + , 
o . T + 




d 


O O *J ^j 




A 


3 3 CO C 




£~ 


D D Z < 





154 

Table 4-66 Potassium and P leached during Field Study II establishment relative to total 

K and P added and soil-testt K and P prior to Field Study II establishment. 

K P 



% 

Uncoated sand 45aJ 29a 

Uncoated sand with peat 34a 17c 

Naturally-coated sand with peat 25a 23b 

Artificially-coated sand with peat 32a 3d 

t Soil-test K and P are based on 30 cm root zone. 
X Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



fN 
O 
O 
(S 



-a 

3 
■*-* 

5 

is 

9 



ca 
U 



(4-1 




u 

d 

cd 
u 

I 

a. 

3 



M 

C/5 

a 

o 

D. 

B 

O 

2 
£ 

5J 

3 

s 

O 
O 
i- 

— 

o 

5J 

3 

CJ 
3 

<S 

3 



I-- 

SO 

i 
■* 

_o 

X 

ca 
H 



o 






oc 



sO 



i ^ * * s 

3 ^ fN ~ (N 

00 






00 

3 



fN 

so 



ca 
c/i 

ca 
Q 



-3- 



-3- 



oc 
tN 



3 

o 

N 

*-» 

o 
o 

DC 



m o ^ r» 






X 

o 

^r 

so 
m 



o- 

sc 
-a- 



m 

ed 

o 

d 
oc 
tN 



w o 
m . 

CN £J 



£ cd 

fN £ 

m o 
© p* 



£ - 

00^ 

3 



^ 



U 

r- 
o> 



fN 



X X ca 

W 00 o 

in >n © 

r- so •-< 



x x a 

— < — < fN 

Tt 00 00 

^t t M 



u x x ca 

vo r*i oo ^J; 

r-^ in oo Os 

Tfr r«"> OS 



o x x « 

(N ^ (N * 



(N oo f> 
m m "^ 



3 



X X 

oo °°. o. <*i 

" VO 0O fi 

— — VO 



X 


r*1 


■vO 


C3 

o 


r*i 


m 


m 


m 


— 


— 


CM 








•■* 












1» 


eg 


c3 


D 


CL 


u 

a, 


u 

CL 


3 



+ 


+ 


+ 


c 


u 

3 


73 


ti 



D D 2 < 



3 
P 

U 



CO 

-*- 


3 

<D 

n 

i- 

3 



u 

X 
X 

-a 
o 

o 



3 t/2 

3 H 

8 & 

I a! 
* JS 

5-1 O, 

S 5 
IS 

.3 yi 

03 £ 

l> 3 

£ a 

^ o 

d 
A 



(N 






O 






o 






(N 






._ 






t— ^ 






>^ 






T3 






3 






*s 






c« 




$ , 


2 




o ' 


13 




H 


is 






to 






c 












■•-1 






J 












o. 




o 


5J 




ON 


fl 






5J 






£ 












s 






*<— i 




m 


o 




00 


3 






O 


















U 






3 






ed 






a 






u 




OS 


1 




vO 


<M 






D. 






3 






E 


00 

a 


SO 


o 


•*-> 




X 

a 


J 




M 


"d, 




O 




in 


X 


5-1 


u-i 


a 




3 


ea 







CA 




cd 
'-3 

Cl) 


>> 

Q 


■<a- 


3 












OJ 






3 




•^ 


O 




^r 


N 






-*^ 






O 






5 




■* 


'— 




m 


O 






5J 






u 






3 






y 




00 


3 




fN 


(S 






3 






^™ 






00 






SO 

1 


3 




Tt 


O 




w 


N 






-«— • 




■s. 


O 




M 


O 




H 


a 





O X X ea 
^ so sp 00 

S d d o 



3 

SO 



00 



ca x 



x 
o 



ca 



So X> 
»N O 
00 — I rT 



O 

o 



5J 

00 






« ea 
Os o 

80 r~ c> >ri 

■<t o O m 

— (N <N <N 

X> 

x> ca ca ca 

o oo o o 

rf d ^ tt 

- ce r^ o 



155 



(N >n Tl- — 

in os oo o 



ca ca 



m P» en cn 
»a- oo r*» oo 



x 

OS 



rs) rt 



g — o4 rs) r<i 

&- - X 

F 



x ca 

cn — 

d os 

fN fN 



x x ca 

VO — — 



<N £ £ 5 



o x x ca 

— rn •* •* 

- N n K 

_ — Tj" 



x x ca 

■^ fN •«*; 
d vi in r^ 



XXX 
fN F> o 



tN so oo r- 



■all' 

o . + + 
o o 4J *j 

C C 3 "C 

D D Z < 



3 

I 

la 



2 

M 

+-» 
O 
3 

i- 

u 

3 



u 

X 

>-. 

X 
-3 

o 



£ wS 

1 a 
I § 

* j& 

o o. 

3 3 
.-3 M 

% s 

3 3 

§ £ 
S 3 

£ Q 
&^ 

^ o 
d 

A 

a. 



156 

Table 4-69 Potassium and P uptake during Field Study II establishment relative to total K 

and P added and soil-testf K and P prior to Field Study II establishment. 

K P 

% 

Uncoated sand 6.0b$ 3.3b 

Uncoated sand with peat 10.0a 5.2a 

Naturally-coated sand with peat 9.3a 4.0b 

Artificially-coated sand with peat 3.4c 0.7c 

t Soil-test K and P are based on 30 cm root zone. 
J Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



157 



Table 4-70 Influence of root zone media on soil moisture content as a function of time 

after planting field study II. - 

Root zone Days after plantingt 



28 76 



- - Volumetric moisture content - 
Uncoated 0.04di 0.05c 
Unc. + Peat 0.07c 0.08b 
Nat. + Peat 0.09b 0.08b 
Art. + Peat 0. 1 la 0. 10a 



•("Irrigation was applied twice daily. 

JAny means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-71 Selected chemical properties of root zone media upon completion of field 
study II establishment 2002. 



Root zone 


pH 


Pa Pw 


K 


Ca 


Mg 








mgL- 1 












Uncoated Sand 


6.8at 


11.2b 4.1b 


6.1b 


57.7c 


3.3b 


Uncoated Sand and Peat 


5.2bc 


8.3b 4.4b 


7.0b 


49.0c 


3.7b 


Naturally-Coated Sand and Peat 


5.5b 


7.2b 3.8b 


7.0b 


86.6b 


15.5a 


Artificially-Coated Sand and Peat 


5.2c 


323.0a 22.2a 


18.1a 


226.1a 


14.9a 



t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P> 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



158 

Maintenance 
Cli pping production during maintenance 

Clipping production was influenced by the inclusion of artificially-coated sand 
and in part, to peat amended to uncoated sand during maintenance (Table 4-72). The 
addition of peat increased clipping production 97, 1 1 1, and 125 DAP relative to uncoated 
sand. The effect of root zone media on clipping production during Field Study I 
maintenance was similar to the effect in Field Study II maintenance in that the inclusion 
of peat to uncoated sand increased clipping production in the early stages of maintenance 
with no difference occurring during the late stages of maintenance (Table 4-51). The 
addition of artificially-coated sand to uncoated sand with peat, however, increased 
clipping production over uncoated sand more consistently than uncoated sand with peat 
alone with an increase observed 97, 1 1 1, 125, 132, 139, 166, and 180 DAP during 
maintenance. In both Field Study I and Field Study II maintenance the presence of 
artificially-coated sand increased clipping production relative to uncoated sand both early 
and late in the maintenance period. The presence of naturally -coated sand, however, did 
not increase clipping production relative to uncoated sand in either study. 

The inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand to uncoated sand increased total 
clipping production during maintenance (Table 4-72). Peat added to uncoated sand 
increased total clipping production by 13% over uncoated sand alone. Further increases 
were observed when artificially-coated sand was amended to uncoated sand with peat. 
Total clipping production from uncoated sand with peat was increased 8% by the addition 
of artificially-coated sand. In Field Study I, the inclusion of artificially-coated sand 



159 
increased total clipping production by 18% relative to uncoated sand with peat. 
Naturally-coated sand had the lowest total clipping production during maintenance. In 
Field Study I there was no difference between naturally-coated sand with peat and 
uncoated sand alone (Table 4-51). 
K leached during maintenance 

Because of the high K content of artificially-coated sand, its inclusion increased K 
leached during maintenance (Table 4-73). With the exception of 97 DAP there was no 
difference in K leached from artificially-coated sand with peat and uncoated sand. There 
was no difference, however, in K leached among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, 
and naturally-coated sand with peat during maintenance. 

The presence of artificially -coated sand increased total K leached during 
maintenance (Table 4-73). There was no difference in total K leached among uncoated 
sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat. In Field Study I 
maintenance, total K leached also was greater from artificially-coated sand with peat 
(Table 4-52). In addition there was no difference in total K leached among uncoated 
sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat during Field Study I 
maintenance (Table 4-52). 
P leached during maintenance 

Following the cessation of P fertilization at 90 DAP, P leaching generally 
decreased with time during the maintenance period (Table 4-74). While percolate P 
concentrations decreased with time, concentrations exceed 0.3 mg L" 1 throughout the 
maintenance period (Table A-24). With two exceptions (97 and 1 80DAP), there were no 



160 
differences among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand 
with peat. More P leached from artificially-coated sand than uncoated sand and uncoated 
sand with peat from 1 18 to 173 DAP. In addition, more P leached from artificially-coated 
sand than naturally-coated sand from 132 to 173 DAP. Percolate P concentrations were 
greatest from artificially-coated sand from 139 - 180 DAP (Table A-24). 

The greatest total P leached from artificially-coated sand with peat during 
maintenance (Table 4-74). High P content of artificially-coated sand served as a source 
of soluble P throughout the maintenance period contributing to P losses. There was no 
difference in total P leached from uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally- 
coated sand with peat. In Field Study I maintenance there was no difference in total P 
leached among any of the treatments (Table 4-53). Because no P was applied during 
Field Study II maintenance differences among treatments were observed. 
Relative K and P leached during maintenance 

Despite greater total K leached from artificially-coated sand with peat during 
maintenance, there was no differences in relative K leached among the treatments (Table 
4-75). Similar results were observed during Field Study I maintenance. 

Phosphorus leaching, relative to inherent soil P, was the least from the root zone 
amended with peat and artificially-coated sand (Table 4-75). The lowest relative amount 
of P leached was observed from artificially-coated sand with peat. Thus the artificially- 
coated sand with peat treatment is a high P content root zone, but P leaching relative to P 
content is minimal. 



161 
K uptake during maintenance 

The inclusion of peat and artificially -coated sand to uncoated sand increased K 
uptake during the early stages of maintenance (97 - 125 DAP) (Table 4-76). There was 
no difference, however, between uncoated sand and uncoated sand with peat from 132- 
173 DAP, perhaps because of decreased soil K. In general, the inclusion of artificially- 
coated sand increased K uptake throughout the maintenance period because of greater soil 
K content. The presence of natural sand grain coatings did not increase K uptake relative 
to uncoated sand, and on three sampling dates (104, 153, 160 DAP) less K uptake was 
observed. 

The addition of peat and artificially -coated sand to uncoated sand increased total 
K uptake during the maintenance period (Table 4-76). The presence of naturally-coated 
sand did not increase total K uptake relative to uncoated sand alone. During Field Study I 
maintenance, the inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand also increased total K 
uptake. 
P uptake during maintenance 

When artificially-coated sand was added to uncoated sand with peat, P uptake was 
increased over that of uncoated sand alone during maintenance (Table 4-77). The 
addition of only peat to uncoated sand increased P uptake, but the effect was observed to 
a lesser extent than that occurring due to the inclusion of artificially-coated sand as well. 
The combination of high P content and increased moisture retention increased dry matter 
production and P uptake of 'Tifdwarf ' growing in artificially-coated sand relative to 
uncoated sand alone through much of the maintenance period. 



162 
Total P uptake was increased by the inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand 
to uncoated sand (Table 4-78). Peat and artificially-coated sand increased total P uptake 
by 12 % and 38 % relative to uncoated sand alone. Increased total P uptake is best related 
to increased dry matter production from the addition of peat and artificially-coated sand. 
Phosphorus uptake was greater from artificially-coated sand with peat than from 
uncoated sand with peat during maintenance (Table 4-78). In Field Study I maintenance 
artificially -coated sand also resulted in greater total P uptake than uncoated sand with 
peat (Table 4-56). The naturally-coated sand with peat had the smallest quantity of total 
P uptake during maintenance. 
Relative K and P uptake during maintenance 

Relative K uptake generally increased during maintenance in comparison to 
relative K uptake during establishment (Table 4-79, 4-66). Furthermore, relative K 
uptake from uncoated sand and uncoated sand with peat exceeded 100%, because of 
mobilization of K from stolons and rhizomes to leaf tissue which also may indicate 
immanent K deficiency. On the other hand, relative K uptake from artificially-coated 
sand was approximately half that of uncoated sand and uncoated sand with peat indicating 
a greater ability of the artificially -coated sand treatment to supply K as overall soil K 
levels decreased during maintenance, because considerable K remained in the artificially- 
coated sand with peat for possible future uptake. 



163 
Relative P uptake also generally increased during maintenance. Less relative P 
uptake was observed from uncoated sand than uncoated sand with peat and naturally- 
coated sand with peat. The lowest relative P uptake was observed from artificially-coated 
sand with peat. 
Soil moisture content during maintenance 

Soil moisture content was measured twice approximately 12 h following early 
morning irrigation. Peat and artificially-coated sand increased soil moisture relative to 
uncoated sand during the most stressful part of the day (Table 4-80). The presence of 
naturally-coated sand did not increase soil moisture content relative to that of uncoated 
sand with peat. The inclusion of artificially-coated sand did, however, increase soil 
moisture over that of uncoated sand with peat. 
Selected chemical properties of root zone materials at the conclusion of the maintenance 

Because the ammonium-based N fertilization was reduced and the irrigation water 
was calcarious, the pH of treatments generally increased during the maintenance period 
(Table 4-81). Uncoated sand had the highest pH following establishment (Table 4-6 land 
continued to have the highest pH at the end of the maintenance period. The inclusion of 
peat increased the buffering capacity of uncoated sand which resulted in a lower soil pH. 
The acidic property of peat and buffer capacity appear to have diminished with time, in 
that the pH of uncoated sand with peat generally increased during maintenance relative to 
the end of establishment (Table 4-71). The pH of naturally-coated sand with peat was 
less than that of uncoated sand and uncoated sand with peat, but also increased with time 



164 
following establishment (Table 4-71). Artificially-coated sand with peat had the lowest 
pH at the end of maintenance and remained most similar to that following establishment 
(Table 4-71). 

The CEC of treatments were generally slightly higher (Table 4-81) than at the 
beginning of the study (Table 4-66) perhaps as soil pH and organic matter content 
increased. The CEC of naturally-coated sand with peat, however, did not change during 
the study. Artificially-coated sand with peat had the highest CEC and was the only 
treatment with a CEC value > 6 cmol kg" 1 , the benchmark value suggest for sand-based 
root zone mixes (Petri and Petrovic, 2001). The inclusion of peat to uncoated sand 
continued to have a marked influence on CEC, with the CEC of uncoated sand with peat 
substantially higher than that of uncoated sand alone. 

Without P fertilization during maintenance, soil Pa of all treatments decreased 
(Table 4-81) relative to the end of establishment (Table 4-71). There was no difference in 
Pa or Pw among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with 
peat. Artificially -coated sand with peat had the highest Pa and Pw because of inherent P 
content and P retention characteristics. 

Potassium fertilization ceased following establishment as well, and soil K 
generally decreased during maintenance (Table 4-81). Artificially-coated sand had the 
highest soil K because of inherent K and retention characteristics at the end of 
maintenance. Despite variations in CEC there was no difference in soil K among 
uncoated sand, uncoated sand 



165 
with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat. Likewise, there was no difference in soil 
K among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat 
following establishment (Table 4-71). 

Selected physical properties of root zone materials in undisturbed cores at the conclusion 
of maintenance 

Uncoated sand had the highest K^, at the end of maintenance (Table 4-82). The 
inclusion of peat slowed K^,. Uncoated sand with peat had a higher K^, than either 
naturally-coated sand with peat or artificially-coated sand with peat. All treatments 
exceeded the accelerated range of 30-60 cm h" 1 specified for putting green root zone 
mixes by the USGA (USGA Green Section Staff, 1993) but the undisturbed cores was not 
compacted by the technique specified by the USGA for laboratory analysis and little 
thatch accumulation was observed. 

The addition of peat and sand grain coatings increased moisture retention (Table 
4-82). Uncoated sand alone had the lowest moisture holding capacity. The addition of 
artificially-coated sand to uncoated sand with peat increased moisture retention relative to 
that of uncoated sand with peat. In the laboratory, naturally-coated sand with peat had 
greater soil moisture than uncoated sand with peat, whereas, no difference between the 
two treatments was detected in the field using Theta-probe during maintenance (Table 4- 
80). 
Rubidium leached during Field Study II 

Rubidium leaching and retention were studied to indicate how the treatments 
affected cation leaching and retention, because fertilizer K could not be distinguished 



166 
from K inherent to the root zone media. Rubidium leaching (Table 4-83) was influenced 
by the CEC of root zone mixes (Table 4-81). The presence of Rb was first detected 7 
days after application (DAA) in percolate water leached from uncoated sand. At 14 
DAA, traces of Rb l+ were detected in percolate water leached from uncoated sand with 
peat and artificially-coated sand with peat, but there was no difference in Rb leached 
among uncoated sand with peat, naturally-coated sand with peat, and artificially-coated 
sand with peat. By 21 DAA, Rb was observed in percolate water of all treatments except 
artificially-coated sand with peat, with more Rb leached from uncoated sand and 
uncoated sand with peat than naturally-coated sand with peat and artificially-coated sand 
with peat. Less Rb leaching from naturally-coated sand with peat than uncoated sand 
with peat may be due to the ability of the natural clay coating of naturally-coated sand 
with peat to better retain monovalent cations than the sphagnum peat associated with 
uncoated sand with peat. Bell (1959) demonstrated that trivalent and divalent cations 
were absorbed much more strongly by Sphagnum than monovalent cations. From 28 to 
42 DAA, fewer differences in Rb leaching were observed among uncoated sand, uncoated 
sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with peat as Rb levels in root zone decreased 
with time. 

The inclusion of peat and artificially-coated sand influenced total Rb leached 
during the study period (Table 4-83). The greatest quantity of Rb leached from uncoated 
sand. Uncoated sand with peat and naturally-coated sand with peat decreased total Rb 
leached relative to uncoated sand alone because of higher CEC (Table 4-81). The 
smallest quantity of Rb leached from artificially-coated sand with peat which had the 



167 
highest CEC of any treatment (Table 4-81). Thus, even though the most K leaching was 
observed in the artificially-coated sand (Table 4-73), the Rb study suggested that a 
monovalent cation applied as fertilization can be retained by that root zone media. 
Effect of root zone mixture on soil Rb 

The inclusion of artificially coated sand had the greatest influence on retention of 
soil Rb in the top 10 cm of the root zone mixture (Table 4-84). While the addition of peat 
to the root zone mixture decreased Rb leached (Table 4-83), there was no difference in 
soil Rb among uncoated sand, uncoated sand with peat, and naturally-coated sand with 
peat in the top 10 cm of root zone. Artificially-coated sand with peat, however, decreased 
Rb leached (Table 4-83) and increased soil Rb (Table 84). 



Q 

% 

C 

u 

c 

•s 

E 

O 

© 

<N 



3 

5 



ha 

a 

0> 



•— 
o 

e 

o 



168 



at 

O 

H 



o 

00 






NO 
NO 



o 

NO 



in 



on 

e 
© 

*x- 

o 

3 

-a 
o 
c 

D. 

c 

■ — 



C 
O 

2 
•3 

U 

E 

ID 
C 
O 
N 
+^ 

O 

o 

o 

c 

3 

63 

S 



r- 

i 

* 

x 

H 

H 



oc 

c 



<g 

eg 

■j-i 
>-> 

to 

Q 



IT) 



00 



3: 

o 






a 
o 

N 
■*-» 
O 

o 
a* 



-o^5^ 






: £££s 






, ""■ "" -r (N 






1 „o 

1 x ra X) to 






i — 00 o o 






' Tf Tf ■* NO 






! x x 


. , 




' S C3 X 3 


c 




1 NO in © On 






1 NO 00 NO On 




! o x 


C 




, X «f O C3 


'•5 




■"". '"S "~. ! ^ 




[ no [•» in od 


"5 




1 - Cd Cd Hi cd 

, O »n ^ <n 


o 




'X- 

*X2 




i w d ^ in 






3 




■ « a X s 


•*_ > 




i 00 O O (N 







' 6-h(N 


c 




1 — — ^H 


u 




1 X> X _ 


£ 




' st IS X A 


1_ 




1 NO Tj; ON ON 


<U 




1 t* in ~ od 






• ^- ^-* ^M p>4 






<u 




1 O X «3 


c 




' X CS O NO 


B 




n *"" *"" ° — '- 


M 




C od On K — 


aj 




=* O X) 


X 

*-* 




i X co es 






i •* ■* U Tf 


X 




' © (N P Tf 




■ — — On — 






' Xi es X k) 


o 




i t^ m r-- r~- 










1 N «1(N * 


,o 




1 -»-^ 1—* ^— »-^ 


t— 




! x 


c 




3 a £ s 


E 

_3 


u 


1 NO (N [On ^ 


H 


' od — « in ~ 


o 


u 


| — <N — <N 


OX) 




<u 




! X eS X K) 




J NO o o ■* 


rt 


', r^ © no © 


C/3 


o 


, — <N — (N 


o 


_Q. 




X 


4a 


, s a x a 


*-» 


3 


, Cnj m © >n 


c 


i r-^ On (N 00 


X 


, (N| N N (N 


•«— 1 


(f: 


1 -»- 


'£ 


r c 


i x ca x a 


tn 


a 


, in © t-- © 


mean: 
Dune 


' CS 1^ (N t^ 


i (N N (N N 




>. 


>. 


B •! « 

•S 1 S 8 


5 

-t- 


X 

in 
O 


CO + + , 
. - o . ^ + 




d 


O O *J .j 




A 


e e « t 




c-. 


3 D Z < 





cJ 






CJ 






§ 






c 






u 






-*-* 






c 












a 






§ 






CN 






O 






o 






CN 






__ 






— ^ 






>> 






-a 






3 






•*-» 






00 






-a 
















"3 


00 
G 




o 
H 








'■4—' 






1 




o 


o. 




00 


u- 




^^ 


CJ 






<tt 






C3 




CO 


1) 

£ 




r- 








v-* 






— 






o 




no 


c 




NO 


o 












■*-* 






o 






<H 


00 


O 

no 


co 


■— ' 


v-M 


00 
09 


J 




CO 

G 




CO 
I/O 


2 

cj 

CO 


<2 

cd 






00 




— 


>> 


O 


| 


Q 


co 


. n 






00 






00 






03 




CN 


O 




m 


a. 






c 






o 






C3 




00 








-a 




^^ 


u 




~~ 


£ 






<u 






C 




»— i 


Q 




— — 


N 




»"* 


*-- 






O 













c 




■<3- 


(*H 




O 


o 






a> 






u 






c 






cj 






9 




t— 


C 




on 


c 






~~ 






co 






■ 


cj 

c 




-* 


o 




« 


N 






-*- 




JQ 


o 




05 


o 




H 


04 





x 


JO 


X 


cd 






00 


F 


CN 


O 






q 


— 


CN 


CN 


•*- 

c 




— < 


d 


d 


co 






a 


c3 


CO 


co 




ro 


1— 


— • 


~— 


-5 




o 


o 


q 


^* 




d 


d 


d 


d 


"cd 




ed 


co 


co 


03 


cj 




VO 


.— 


o 


no 


'■3 




o 


o 


o 


— 


00 




d 


d 


d 


d 


lo 




x 








*9 

00 




03 


XI 


X 


co 


*— 1 




^—« 


CN 


<— i 


CN 


O 




— 


o 


o 


CO 


3 




O 


d 


d 


d 


CJ 




JO 








55 




ca 


X 


X 


CO 


L_, 




\D 


© 


o 


no 


CJ 




— 


c 


o 


CN 


3 




d 


d 


d 


d 


_CJ 




jo 








CJ 




ed 


X 


X 


03 






r- 


CN 


CO 


■<r 


■3 




cn 


O 


O 


r~ 


00 




d 


d 


d 


d 


CJ 




JO 








X 

4_» 




ed 


X 


X 


03 






o 


«— . 


— 




>% 




q 


o 


o 


CO 


X 




o 


d 


d 


d 


-o 

CJ 




JO 


X 


X 


ed 






r- 


(N 


m 


in 




— 


O 


o 


r-» 


1 




d 


d 


d 


d 




X 








c 


00 


ed 


X 


X 


CO 


E 


CJ 


^— 


— -i 


•— 


NO 


r- 


q 


q 


q 


o 


CJ 
OX) 


d 


d 


d 


d 


o 

CJ 


JO 








4j 


i 


co 
cn 


X 
CN 


X 


03 


E 


o 


q 


o 


o 


03 
00 


CJ 


d 


d 


d 


d 


CJ 
X 


'■3 


CO 


CO 


03 


03 


•«— 1 


3 
2 


o 


o 


~— 


CO 


c 


o 


c 


o 


O 


*JE 


d 


d 


d 


d 


+—> 


00 


+- 








'i 


s 


x 


X 


X 


ed 


00 


ITi 


o 


O 


o 


c 


CJ 


i — 


o 


— 


"3- 


03 


= 


d 


d 


d 


d 












>> 


>, 


-a 


03 
cj 

a. 


03 

u 


03 

s 

Oh 


1 


X 

o 


ed 

o 


+ 


+ 


+ 




d 


CJ 


CJ 


^_J 






A 


C 


C 


03 


ti 




a. 


D 


D 


Z 


< 





6 






a 






03 






c 






CJ 






*-* 






c 












03 






E 






rN 






o 






o 






(N 






►_ 






^H 






>^ 






-a 






3 






-^-< 






00 






T3 












U 




ptj 


«C 




CO 


CO 




o 
H 








'■^ 






1 












"S. 




o 


■_ 




00 


CJ 




— 


<e 






CO 






CJ 

£ 




CO 


"*rf 




<— i 


— 






o 






a 




vo 


_o 




VO 


*■*-• 






o 






1 


00 


o 


CO 


_c 


vx 


% 


J 


" 


00 






c 


D. 








CO 


X 


CJ 


>n 


o 

CO 


OS 


^^ 


CJ 


eel 




^^ 


en 




00 

2 


ed 
Q 


ON 
CO 


C 


^^ 


X 






a. 






00 






O 




CM 


X 




CO 


a 






c 






o 






CO 




00 








T3 




, " H 


U 




^* 


E 






CJ 






c 




»— 1 


o 




»-^ 


N 




»-* 


■^^ 






O 






c 






— 




■* 


1*H 




o 


o 






CJ 






u 






c 






CJ 






3 




r- 


c 




ON 


c 






—' 






■* 






■ 


c 




■* 


o 




cy 


N 






■*■* 




X 


O 




e« 


o 




H 


aJ 





X 
■<* 
in 

d 



x 
o 

o 



X X) 

r- no 

NO — 



O — cN 



X X 
ed ed 

o o 



CO 



o o o o 



X 
CN 

o 



X) x 

CN TT 
O O 



O O O O 



X 
CN 

O 



X X 

ON NO 

o o 



o o o o 



X 
CN 

o 
d 



x 
£ o 



x x 

co rf 

O O 



o o o 



- MO 



X X 

00 — 

o — 

d d 



x x 

CN Tl- 

o o 

d d 



x 
o 



X 

o 



X ed 

in CO 

O (N 

d d 

X> ed 

O CO 

— < CN 



o o o o 

O X 

ed ed 

t3- no 

O O 



CN 

o 



o 

o 
d 

„ X) 
X 03 

co m 



o 
d 



co ed 

— CN 

o o 

d d 



x x 

NO NO 

CN CN 

d d 



o o 

Xi 

<a co 

on — 

o — 

d d 



ed ed 
wo wo 



o 

d 

CO 
NO 
IT) 



o 

d 

x 

CO 

d 



ed "SJ *- 

•slsl 

S °- o« ft 

ed + 4. , 
O . + + 

C C ed t 

D D 2 <S 



169 



£ 

CJ 

,*- 

_>, 

"CO 
CJ 



X 

•a 

CJ 

o 



3 1/5 
3 H 

8 & 
£ f2 

(J C- 

n£ 2 

c 3 

is 

.-3. U5 

1 1 

03 3 

£ a 
►» ^ 

c x 

d 

A 



170 

Table 4-75 Potassium and P leached during Field Study II maintenance relative to total K 

and P added and soil-testt K and P prior to Field Study II maintenance. 

K P 



Uncoated sand 
Uncoated sand with peat 
Naturally-coated sand with peat 
Artificially-coated sand with peat 





--%--- 




57aJ 




16c 


8a 




27b 


10a 




53a 


59a 




3d 



t Soil-test K and P are based on 30 cm root zone. 
X Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



CO 

E 

IN 

O 

o 

<N 



-o 

3 
M 

ta 

so 
E 







<C 




CO 




(j 




e 








^^ 


00 


<4- 


c 





'■3 


c 


J 


%-» 


"E, 


o 




c 


1-4 


co 


CO 




tZ] 


CO 


CO 


1 


Q 


49 




Q. 




3 




^ 




3 




O 




CO 








T3 




o 




E 




u 




e 




o 




N 




+— 




o 




c 




E 




V. 




O 




u 




u 




c 




o 




3 




q 




c 




1—1 




SO 




f~ 


U 


1 


e 


T 


o 


o 


N 




*-» 


X 


O 


■ 


o 


H 


£ 



oo 



X CO 

P ""! 
m m 



«3 

SO 00 

00 vo 

so £ 

U -s 

m ^ 

00 oo 
i£ so 

_ Xi 
X CO 
00 VO 

t- 1 © 

in vo 



X CO 

en -*t 

oo oo 

ci m 



X CO 

m oo 

r-^ (N 

m CN 



a 

© 



co oo 

« eg 
% Si 



-§ X o eo 

in <* n — 

accO^; 

CN ° P* 12, 

x> X X « 

£; m »n "J 

S 2 - CN 



r~- oo 

CN i^ 

OS os 

en rn 

"■ Os 

g CN w-j 

S o x 

SO Os 



co 

<N 

in 



O CO 

p p 

rn — 

O OS 



Cj CO 



cm 



(N 



— -- U rsi 



is 3 

3 — ; 

CN fN 

£ w 

CN OS 

rsi cn 



X CO 

r- os 

Os CN 

Os r-~ 



X co 

F Tf 

— CN 
00 OS 

— CN 



X 



\o en 

— CN 

cn en 



x 

CO 

© 



m en 

Os •* 
CN "f 



+-•6 8 

u CO x 

m os o 



00 O Os 


m 


m TT 00 


-3- 


m *0" m 


"* 


4H 




-gg 


s 


U * fl, 


S 

a, 


CO + -L 

O . ^ 


+ 


CJ O *J 

C C CO 


id 


D D Z 


< 



S ts 

3 H 

8 & 

1 1 

i » 

r- 3 

.-S n 



E Q 

♦^ o 
d 

A 

a. 



3 

1 

CO 

E 

<N 

O 

o 



-a 

3 

US 
so 

3 



eg 

C3 

E 



o 

3 
O 
'■3 
o 

3 

CO 
M 

CO 

u 

■a 



PL, 

3 
C 
CO 

•3 
u 

E 

u 

3 

s 

■*-* 

O 

c 



ID 

Q 

3 
OJ 
3 

a 

3 



■ 



X 

H 



i- 
<u 
<C 
eo 

CO 

>^ 

eo 

Q 



00 



— ~ »- fN 

X 

•5 « X CO 

*> 9 os r~- 

o ^ oo d 

<N <n zS ^ 



£x 

00 *n 

d >n 

* X 
OS S 

>^ vo 
X «j 

g x 
p r«» 

<^> Os 

in (o 

X X) 

— : so 
£ <^ 

en m 

'fi X a 
c — ■* 

g^ Os 
3 en tj- 

cn ?; 

OS os' 
TT in 

CJ rj 

p r- 

00 M 

SO 00 

X cO 
CN 00 

CN OS 
t— 00 



X CO 

in rn 

cn >n 

CN -"0- 



U CO 

CN CN 

SO CN 

— en 



CO 



os »n 



o CO 

O CN 

SO ^ 

cn <n 

>n p 

^ en 

in oo 

X eo ■ 

>n os Js 

>n os a 

CN rt 



171 



X 

m 



en -— 
en so 



>n 



CO 

o 



en en 

SO Os 



X 



os »n 

so Os 



X 
CO 



u 

r-; 

in •-« 
Os en 



X CO 

CN O 

so r-^ 

— m 



x 

CO 

■fl- 



ea 

CJ — 

« + 

O 

O O 

c c 

D D 



rf rN 
CN ■* 



+ + 

II 



3 

i 

'•5 

"cO 

u 

'•fi 

1 

■^^ 

o 

3 



i £ 

3 H 



=0 



c 
o 

E d2 

«J Cm 

■5 2 

IS 

2 M 

i 1 

E C 
c * 

c 
c 

A 



172 



Table 4-78 Influence of root zone media on total K and P uptake upon completion of 
field study II 2002 maintenance 180 DAP. 



Root zone 


Potassium 




Phosphorus 


















Uncoated 


2. let 




0.8c 


Uncoated with Peat 


2.4b 




0.9b 


Naturally with Peat 


1.8d 




0.7d 


Artificially with Peat 


2.8a 




1.1a 



tAny means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-79 Potassium and P uptake during Field Study II maintenance relative to total K 
and P added and soil-testt K and P prior to Field Study II maintenance. 





K 




P 


Uncoated sand 
Uncoated sand with peat 
Naturally-coated sand with peat 
Artificially-coated sand with peat 


117a} 

117a 
85ab 
51b 


- % - - - 


24b 

37a 

31a 

lc 



t Soil-test K and P are based on 30 cm root zone. 
I Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



173 



Table 4-80 Influence of root zone media on soil moisture content as a function of time 

after planting field study II. 

Root zone Days after plantingt 

140 182 



--LL- 1 -- 
Uncoated 0.08cJ 0.11c 

Uncoated with peat 0. 1 lb 0. 1 4b 

Naturally-coated with peat 0.11b 0.15b 

Artificially-coated with peat 0. 1 4a 0.18a 



tlrrigation was applied once daily. 
JAny means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



174 

Table 4-81 Selected properties of root zone media used in field study II upon completion 

December 2002. 

Root zone pH CEC Pa Pw K Ca Mg 

cmol c kg' 1 mg L' 1 

Uncoatedsand 7.6at O.ld 6.8b 2.2b 4.8b 66.0c 4.6b 

Uncoated sand with peat 7.0b 5.7b 4.4b 1.5b 4.6b 121. 4ab 5.2b 

Naturally-coated sand with peat 6.5c 4.8c 4.1b 1.5b 5.0b 168.9ab 10.5a 
Artificially-coated sand with peat 5.5d 6.4a 254.4a 10.5a 8.7a 228.3a 8.1ab 

t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

Table 4-82 Physical properties of root-zone media in undisturbed cores upon completion 

of field study II. 

Root-zone K^ 6^ (g^ 





- -cm h" 1 - - 


-LL- 1 - 


gem 3 


Uncoated 


243.9at 


12.2c 


1.71a 


Uncoated with peat 


196.4b 


16.4b 


1.59b 


Naturally with peat 


149.5c 


19.2a 


1.53c 


Artificially with peat 


142.6c 


19.2a 


1.51c 



tAny means followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's 
Multiple Range Test. 



175 



Table 4-83 Influence of root zone media on Rb leaching as a function of time after 

application field study II 2002. 

Root zone Days after application 

7 14 21 28 35 42 Total 



mg m" 2 - 



Uncoated O.Oat 50.3a 15.2a 69.0a 24.3a 9.3a 0.3a 168.5a 
Unc. + Peat 0.0a 0.0b 0.6b 21.4a 9.4b 4.2a O.lab 35.6b 
Nat. + Peat 0.0a 0.0b 0.0b 8.5b 6.1b 4.5a 0.3a 19.5b 
Art. + Peat 0.0a 0.0b 0.2b 0.0b 0.0c 0.0b 0.0b 0.2c 

t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table 4-84 Influence of root zone materials on soil rubidium. 



Root zone Soil Rb 



i+ 



--mg 10 cm" 1 
Uncoated sand 43.75b 
Uncoated sand with peat 37.50b 
Naturally-coated sand with peat 3 1 .25b 
Artificially-coated sand with peat 81.25a 



t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



CHAPTER 5 
CONCLUSIONS 

The influence of peat and coated sands on root zone properties, and on turfgrass 
response, were studied in both the glasshouse and in the field. Sand coatings of clay, 
regardless of the source or method of coating, imparted a number of similar properties to 
the root zone mixes. 

Artificially-coated sand and peat positively influenced water relations in simulated 
sand-based putting greens and under field conditions. It was observed, using laboratory 
techniques, that artificially-coated sand improved moisture content at high negative 
pressures, thereby increasing available water to turf which, in the absence of coatings and 
peat, can encounter a water deficit. The presence of natural and artificial coatings 
increased water use efficiency two and three years following establishment. Moreover, as 
detected by soil moisture sensors, the presence of coated sands and peat increased root 
zone moisture content under field conditions. On the other hand, the important putting 
green physical property of adequate saturated hydraulic conductivity (K^,) was not 
negatively reduced by the use of coated sands. 

Cation exchange capacity of root zone mixes was increased by the presence of 
sand grain coatings and peat. In both glasshouse and field studies root zones mixtures 
consisting of naturally- and artificially-coated sands had greater CEC than uncoated sand. 

176 



177 
In the field, however, the CEC of naturally -coated sand decreased with time perhaps as 
easily detachable sand grain coatings elluviated with percolate water. The CEC of 
artificially-coated sands used in both glasshouse and field studies changed little with time 
indicating a measure of coating stability. While the CEC of uncoated sand alone did not 
increase with time, the CEC of uncoated sand root zones were increased substantially by 
peat as determined three years after planting in the glasshouse studies and during two 
field studies lasting approximately one year each. 

The benefits of naturally -coated sand and peat on bermudagrass coverage during 
establishment differed between glasshouse and field studies. While presence of a highly 
coated, naturally-coated sand increased bermudagrass coverage in the glasshouse, no 
increase in bermudagrass coverage relative to uncoated sand was observed using 
naturally-coated sand in the field study. The inclusion of peat did not increase 
bermudagrass coverage in the glasshouse, in the field, however, uncoated sand amended 
with peat increased bermudagrass coverage relative to uncoated sand alone probably by 
increasing root zone moisture content. 

Inclusion of artificially-coated sand consistently increased bermudagrass coverage 
relative to uncoated sand during establishment in both the glasshouse and field studies. 
Moreover, incorporation rates up to a maximum of 33% artificially-coated sand on a 
volume basis increased bermudagrass coverage during establishment in uncoated sand 
root zone with and without peat. 

Sand grain coatings increased clipping production, decreased the quantity of P and 
K leached, and increased soil-test P and K relative to uncoated sand. Glasshouse findings 



178 
suggest that a coated sand consisting of phyllosilicate clays and Fe and Al oxides 
increased clipping production, decreased P and K leached, and increased soil-test P and K 
relative to uncoated sand. The ability of naturally-coated sand to increase clipping 
production, decrease the quantity of P and K leached, and increase soil-test P and K may 
severely be diminished by the mining and sizing processes. Furthermore, detachment of 
phyllosilicate clay may increase P and K leached from naturally-coated sand. 
Artificially-coated sands, however, which are not subject to post-mining processes, 
consistently increased Tifdwarf bermudagrass clipping production. While relative P 
and K leached can be decreased in the presence of artificially-coated sands, the ability of 
artificially-coated sands to reduce P and K loss can be masked because of inherent soluble 
P and K associated with the artificial-coatings. Findings in the glasshouse with K and in 
the field with Rb suggest that artificial-sand grain coatings can decrease the loss of 
cations from a sand based root zone mixture. 

The inclusion of a highly-coated naturally- and artificially-coated sand can 
increase P and K uptake relative to uncoated sand. In the glasshouse naturally-coated 
sand increased the quantity of P and K uptake relative to uncoated sand. Increased P 
uptake from naturally-coated sand in which the coatings consist of Fe and Al oxides is not 
likely due to decreased P availability of chemisorbed P since it was observed that 
'Tifdwarf tissue P concentrations decreased in the presence of the Fe and Al containing 
naturally-coated sand. In the field, however, naturally-coated sand did not increase P and 
K uptake relative to uncoated sand probably because of coating detachment resulting 
from the mining and sizing process. The inclusion of artificially-coated sand increased P 



179 
and K uptake relative to uncoated sand in both glasshouse and field studies. 

Peat improved many properties of uncoated sand. The addition of peat to 
uncoated sand increased CEC, water holding capacity, and number of days until wilt of 
the mix. Relative to uncoated sand alone, when uncoated sand is amended with peat, 
coverage and clipping production, were increased. The presence of peat, however, did 
not increase nutrient retention or soil fertility, therefore, the greatest benefit of peat lies in 
its ability to retain moisture. 

Thus, both in the glasshouse and in the field, the sands which were artificially- 
coated with Ca-montmorillonite clay increased turfgrass coverage during establishment, 
the clipping production, water holding capacity, and CEC. Peat also positively influenced 
these characteristics in all studies. However, naturally-coated sand only increased 
coverage and P retention in the glasshouse, and the water holding capacity in the field. 

The use of coated sands and peat improved many poor characteristics of sand- 
based putting green root zones without negatively influencing root zone performance. 
When availability and consistency allow, a naturally-coated sand, with phyllosilicate clay 
and Fe and Al oxide coatings, should be used in sand based putting green root zones in 
order to reduce potential P leaching to P sensitive environments. During establishment, 
when coverage and moisture retention are of concern, the incorporation of peat should be 
considered as an amendment to sand-based putting green root zones. Finally, an 
artificially-coated sand amendment to sand-based putting greens both with and without 
peat should be considered when bermudagrass coverage, moisture retention, nutrient 
retention, and overall fertility are of concern during establishment and maintenance. 



APPENDIX A 
GLASSHOUSE AND FIELD STUDY DATA TABLES 

Table A-l Influence of peat and coating main effects on tissue K concentration by 

bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase I 2000. 

Main effects Days after planting 

29 43 58 71 



Peat 




% - - 






With 


1.09at 


3.14a 


1.16a 


2.04a 


Without 


0.99a 


2.34b 


1.00a 


1.84a 


Sand coating 










Uncoated 


0.50b 


1.02b 


0.67b 


1.60b 


Naturally 


1.21a 


1.38a 


1.34a 


2.11a 


Artificially 


1.42a 


1.56a 


1.23a 


2.10a 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different {P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

Table A-2 Influence of peat and coating main effects on tissue P concentration by 

bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase I 2000. 

Main effects Days after planting 

29 43 58 71 



Peat 




vo 






With 


0.40at 


0.36a 


0.32a 


0.40a 


Without 


0.39a 


0.30b 


0.32a 


0.34a 


Sand coating 










Uncoated 


0.25b 


0.32b 


0.29b 


0.36ab 


Naturally 


0.32b 


0.23c 


0.28b 


0.32b 


Artificially 


0.60a 


0.45a 


0.40a 


0.43a 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



180 



181 



Table A-3 Influence of peat and coating main effects on tissue K concentration by 
bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase II 2001 . 



Main effects 




Days after planting 






355 


370 




381 


397 








-% - 






Peat 












With 


1.85at 


1.88a 




1.87a 


1.94a 


Without 


1.80a 


1.82a 




1.78a 


1.82a 


Sand coating 












Uncoated 


1.60b 


1.71b 




1.74b 


1.66c 


Naturally 


1.87a 


1.87ab 




1.75b 


1.90b 


Artificially 


2.02a 


1.97a 




1.99a 


2.08a 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

Table A-4 Influence of peat and coating main effects on tissue P concentration by 

bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase II 2001. 

Main effects Days after planting 

355 370 381 397 







% - ■ 






Peat 










With 


0.60at 


0.55a 


0.53a 


0.56a 


Without 


0.60a 


0.57a 


0.50a 


0.56a 


Sand coating 










Uncoated 


0.62b 


0.57b 


0.55a 


0.55b 


Naturally 


0.46c 


0.46c 


0.40b 


0.48c 


Artificially 


0.72a 


0.66a 


0.58a 


0.63a 



tAny means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



182 



Table A-5 Influence of peat and coating main effects on tissue K concentration by 
bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase HI 2002. 



Main effects 




Days after 


planting 






699 


715 




729 


746 








% 






Peat 












With 


1.19at 


1.62a 




1.92a 


1.57J 


Without 


1.13a 


1.48b 




1.80a 


1.70 


Sand coating 












Uncoated 


1.12a 


1.44a 




1.89a 


1.52 


Naturally 


1.22a 


1.61a 




1.88a 


1.68 


Artificially 


1.15a 


1.60a 




1.82a 


1.70 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

^Comparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 



Table A-6 Interaction of coating and peat on tissue K concentration by bermudagrass 

phase HI 2002. 

Coating Peat Days after planting 

746 







-%- 


Uncoated 


with 


1.38 


Uncoated 


without 


1.66 


Naturally-coated 


with 


1.74 


Naturally-coated 


without 


1.62 


Artificially-coated 


with 


1.58 


Artificially-coated 


without 


1.81 


""Dq(jj 




2.26 


Significance of the 






Peat X Coating interaction 


0.03 



183 



Table A-7 Influence of peat and coating main effects on tissue P concentration by 
bermudagrass as a function of time after planting phase HI 2002. 



Main effects 




Days after 


planting 






699 


715 




729 


746 








0/ n 






Peat 












With 


0.24at 


0.32a 




0.39a 


0.36$ 


Without 


0.25a 


0.31a 




0.38a 


0.39 


Sand coating 












Uncoated 


0.27a 


0.31a 




0.40a 


0.37 


Naturally 


0.22b 


0.32a 




0.36a 


0.37 


Artificially 


0.24ab 


0.32a 




0.39a 


0.39 



t Any means within the same column and main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) 
followed by the same letter are not different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

^Comparisons among main effects (Peat and Sand Coating) are not made due to 
interactions between main effects. 



Table A-8 Interaction of coating and peat on tissue P concentration by bermudagrass 
phase HI 2002. 



Coating 



Peat 



Days after planting 



746 







-%- 


Uncoated 


with 


0.32 


Uncoated 


without 


0.42 


Naturally-coated 


with 


0.38 


Naturally-coated 


without 


0.36 


Artificially-coated 


with 


0.37 


Artificiallv-coated 


without 


0.40 


^^1^0 05 




0.04 


Significance of the 






Peat X Coating interaction 


0.00 



CU 

< 

Q 
m 



so 

s 



CO 

a 

3 

o 
c 

o 

'3 

u 

c 

a 

cd 

jS 

c 

o 

. — 

2 

c 
u 
y 

C 
o 
u 

s 
IE 

u 

re 
U 



V3 

03 

o 
a 

c 
o 

.2 

E q 

u ^ 

c 

!i 

O <N 

°^ 
4) s 
o 03 

c -o 

u — . 
3 U 

£ c 

ON s 






in 






n 
-* 






c 



<3 
a 

03 

Q 



o 

CM 



m 



ri 



u 



03 



s-8 






u 

c 
o 

N 
*— i 

o 
o 



X 
m 
r- 


X 

o 
m 


oc 
m 




X) 

m 


X 
in 
r~ 



<N — 



cd 



tj- m 

x x 
in ir> 



fN 

d 



(N 



<N — 



x 

o 

in 



vo r-» 



in io 

in r~ 

— ■* 

X CO 

o o 
q q 

li 

2 6 

* CO 

pi o 

es ^, 



X X X « 
m m © g 
r» es m q 

odd 00 

Ci (N (N ^ 

XXX* 

O O «r> S 
>n o r~ fi 

_ c> — >n 2 
jjc X X X CO 

n o o o o 
ta o o o o 



o 


in 


o 


in 


1 ' 


— " 


~~ 


** 


X 


X 


X 


re 


oc 


oo 


o 


o 


so 


oc 


tfi 


o 


^ 


— 


r-^ 


d 


~" 


"™ 




O 
ri 


X 


X 


X 


re 


in 


00 


00 


© 


CN 


tN 


tN 


>n 


On 


oc 


rn 


ri 

tN 


X 


X 


X 


re 


rs 


O 


oc 


oc 


t*l 


en 


~^ 


** 


*— 


ri 


Ti- 


X 


X 


X 


ed 


oc 


oc 


o 


fN 


—^ 


oc 


oc 


^C 


tN 


d 


vn 


C 


+- 






'-* 


X 


X 


X 


re 


CI 


oc 


m 


© 


— 


— ' 


m 


m 


io 


d 


>* 


© 








r) 




eS 




*4 


-r— 


4J 


re 


re 




a. 


u 


u 





+ 


+ 


+ 


u 

e 


6 

c 


re 


tl 


D 


D Z < 



.1) 



Ie2 

"o u 

o 00 

%> % 
E (2 

i « 

u o. 

C 3 
2 M 

% g 

c I 

s s 

E Q 

c x 

d 
A 

a, 



CM 

O 

o 
r) 



(N 



M 



2 fe» 

C 3 
u 

C T3 
8 1 

l\ 

X « 
o 
re 
u 



E 

re 



o. < 

g Q 

2 ° 

re on 
1> — 



o .S 

N 3 

,2 

a a 

g C8 

1 J 

X o 

a 3 

2 ° 

< c 

■s « 

H cS (£ 



00 



y 

re 

03 

re 
G 



oo 



re re re re 
o m m >n 
m (N r~ 



■* -* ■* 

(N (N m 



tN 



■ ^ 

m m >n in 

rn (N 

-^ oo 

m (N m t*> 






00 



re re co cd 

o o in in 

q in i»- cn 

— oo n ri 

<N *— m m 



cd x cd cd 

o o m m 

qo i^m 

in r<-i d oo 

tN — rs Ti- 



re 
u 



8 a 

O Cj 



a ^ a, s 



+ 



CO + 4. 

s c cd t; 

3 D Z < 



184 



S M 

3 H 

o u 
o oo 

7^ 3 

E e2 

S J" 

o c_ 

X ^ 
C 3 

Is 

3 a 
s? S 

1) 3 

£ Q 

3 X 

<^ 

■ o 
© 

A 

ft, 



5! 






ao 

c 



u 

a 

U 

s 



o 

c 
o 

• — 

u 

a 
I 

ca 
»j 

03 
C 

_o 

03 
H 

C 

u 
y 

c 
o 
y 

BO 

C 

4J 



o 

a 

CO 

O 
J= 

o, 

c 
o 

03 



£ 


o 




o 


c 


rs 


o 




N 


r— — 




© 


o 


O 


o 


cs 


— 


_-. 



<U 3 

O *-• 

c "> 
I 1 

c •« 

c 

FN 1) 

IN C 

ii 



u 

03 
>» 

Q 



IT) 



CN 



03 °3 03 

ec oo i*| 
rn •« -" 



03 

oo 



° S 



03 X 

o >r* 

© <N 

© ci 

03 03 

V) 00 



m -^ v© (N 

q o 
oo uS 



03 03 

m q 
© •*! 



03 
O 
"3- 



03 



03 
00 



u 

X 

© 



X 

03 03 

O 00 

"* p 



X) U 
in in 

00 00 



oo ri- m — 



hJ Xi 

B0 CD 

E © 



03 X 

m oo 

■"! ^ 

rj vd — i 



x 
o 



X X 
O m 

ON VO 



03 03 
(N O 
in rr 



o o m •— 



x x 

CN 00 

vo rn 

© © 

X X 

o o 

o in 

— ; © 

o 

O X 

oo oo 

m oo 



03 03 
(N O 



03 X 
m m 



X 
03 

o 



© © CN (N 



O X 

oo m 

O Tf 

© — : 



X X 

00 00 

O r-> 

© © 



03 



u 

03 

5 

o 
C 



+ 

d 
C 



X 

03 03 

(N 00 

t*1 SO 

03 03 

00 (N 



cu a, 
+ + 



D D Z 



15 



9 •= 



«s 



-t .2 



y 

<e 

03 
N 

03 

a 



oo 



X X 

03 03 03 X 

»/-> O 00 00 

h; m a o 

r~ od \d ^o 



03 03 03 03 

N 1T1 (N VI 

o « m (N 

■"i-' -^ cn -^ 



BO 



03 03 03 

r- <n oo 
M vo — 



oo m o m 



m 


c 


oc 


m 


CM 


— 


rs 


00 


r~^ 




K 


(N 


-a 

43 


03 
U 


u 

c_ 


U 

c- 


03 
O 


+ 


+ 


+ 


Q 

C 


e 


03 


tf 


D D Z < 



H 
D 

B0 



11 

^ g 

c y 
2 § 
E Q 

d 

A 

a. 



185 



186 



Table A-13 Influence of root zone media on tissue K concentrations as a function of 

time after planting field study I. 

Root zone Days after planting 

38 50 57 74 81 88 



Uncoated 


% ■ 

0.50bt 0.70b 1.05b 


1.35a 


1.20b 


1.58ab 


Unc. + Peat 


1.25a 1.1 Oab 1.30a 


1.45a 


1.45a 


1.72a 


Nat. + Peat 


0.89ab0.90ab 1.32a 


1.68a 


1.42ab 


1.52ab 


Art. + Peat 


1.16a 1.12a 1.28a 


1.60a 


1.58a 


1.30b 



t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 

Table A- 14 Influence of root zone media on tissue P concentrations as a function of time 

after planting field study I. 

Root zone Days after planting 

38 50 57 74 81 88 









- - - % ■ 






Uncoated 


0.1 8at 


0.29a 


0.33b 


0.46a 


0.40b 0.50a 


Unc. + Peat 


0.31a 


0.36a 


0.39a 


0.46a 


0.47ab 0.50a 


Nat. + Peat 


0.25a 


0.30a 


0.40a 


0.54a 


0.48ab 0.46ab 


Art. + Peat 


0.29a 


0.36a 


0.40a 


0.50a 


0.49a 0.39b 



tAny means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



187 



Table A- 15 Influence of root zone media on" percolate potassium concentration as a " 
function of time after planting maintenance field study I 2001 -2002. 



Root zone 


Days after planting 




^f 






99 118 125 130 140 154 


167 


199 






. z. mo T -l -. 


- 








m g l, 




Uncoated 


26.3at 22.3b 4.0b 2.0c 4.0b 4.2b 


4.0b 


2.8b 




Unc. + Peat 


30.3a 28.0ab 18.8ab 6.8c 5.0b 3.0b 


1.2b 


1.0b - 


- 


Nat. + Peat 


35.5a 28.8ab 33.2a 20.5b 11.5b 4.2b 


2.0b 


0.2b 




Art. + Peat 


44.2a 37.8a 20.8ab 48.5a 38.2a 38.5a 


30.2a 


14.2a 





t Any means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by fUncah's Multiple Range Test. 



Table A-16 Influence of root zone media on percolate phosphorus concentration as a 
function of time after-planting maintenance field study I 2001 -2002. 



Root zone 






Days after planting 










99 


118 


125 130 140 


154 


167 


199 


* 


















_ 






m g jL, 




Uncoated 


5.5at 


5.2a 


2.0b 4.5a 1.5c 


1.0b 


0.6c 


0.6b 




Unc. + Peat 


14.3a 


7.7a 


6.0ab 6.1a 6.8a 


3.0a 


1.2bc 


0.4b 




Nat. + Peat 


16.0a 


10.7a 


9.6a 6.5a 7.7a 


3.4a 


3.3a 


1.3a 




Art. + Peat 


11.3a 


6.9a 


5. lab 4.6a 4.0b 


2.4a 


1.6a 


0.6b 





tAny means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by ifuncan's Multiple Range Test. 



188 



Table A-17 Influence of root zone media on tissue K concentration as a function of time 

after planting field study I maintenance. 

Root zone Days after planting 

130 143 157 187 200 214 



gm" 2 - 



Uncoated 1.34bct 1.24b 1.78b 1.35b 1.36b 1.30a 
Unc. + Peat 1.61ab 1.51a 1.90abl.44ab 1.30b 1.51a 
Nat. + Peat 1.24c 1.32ab 1.75b 1.44ab 1.26b 1.36a 

Art. + Peat 1.65a 1.51a 2.02a 1.69a 1.58a 1.62a 

tAny means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



Table A-18 Influence of root zone media on tissue P concentration as a function of time 

after planting field study I maintenance. 

Root zone Days after planting 



130 143 157 187 200 214 



g m "■ 

Uncoated 0.36bt 0.32b 0.48c 0.32a 0.36c 0.35b 
Unc. + Peat 0.46a 0.38a 0.55ab 0.37a 0.38bc 0.40ab 
Nat. + Peat 0.33b 0.34ab 0.52b 0.39a 0.41ab 0.43a 

Art. + Peat 0.41ab 0.37ab 0.57a 0.40a 0.43a 0.42a 

tAny means within the same column followed by the same letter are not 
statistically different (P > 0.05) by Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 



CN 






O 






o 






CN 






_ 






t-^ 






>% 






■a 






3 






■^-* 






on 






_2 
















o 

C3V 


DO 






G 












«— ' 






1 




m 


D< 




00 


hi 






<u 






<£ 






S3 






1 




NO 








■*-• 






'— 






O 




On 


c 




X 


o 












■*-» 






o 






c 






1 




CN 

X 


03 






on 






03 






3 






_o 




in 


'X 




in 


03 






h 






-*-» 






c 
u 


00 

c 




c 


'-3 




o 
o 


n 




u 


"a, 


o 


03 


i— 


^r 


x 
o 


u 




a 


CD 




_o 


75 




E 


i 




3 


Q 










on 






I 








o^ 







CM 


D. 






3 













03 




00 








•6 






o 






E 






u 




CN 


3 




^"< 


O 






N 






-*-» 






O 






o 
c 




r- 


Im 






o 






u 






o 






3 






0> 






3 






e 




rn 


3 






— 1 






On 






>-■ 


u 




i 
< 


c 
o 




0) 


N 






-4-* 




X! 


o 




95 


o 




H 


08J 





« o u£ 

m © m °o 

oo t- o ""! 

Tf CN* — ©N 

X X X ,£ 

M m M ^ 

cn r- r- "j 

** *** *■* m 



CO X) 

oo in 

— x 



X) 

3 



X 

o 
© 

CN 

X 

OX) CN 

E 
o 

o 



CN 

X 

o 

in 

c-i 

X 

o 
c 
oc 

X 

in 
r- 



x 
© 

o 



cd 

<N 
00 



— CN — ^ 



~ ^ 



X O 
O 00 
X cn 



03 

oo 



x «— — > 2 

X rt 

oo H 

X * 



cn m 

CN o\ 

in •>o' 



x 
eg 



cn >n 

CN Os 

in •<d- 



x 



X 

o 



<n 

x 



X 

o 



X 

o 



in «n 

On »n 

u 

© o 

O *n 



m o on 



X CO 

m >n 

- Tf 0O 

f" CN C"> 

x^S 

X r*i 2 

x x w 

£ O £ 

p*. in cs 

O VO Oj 



o vo m 



o 

X X 

o o 

m in 



<N r- tj- 



03 
in 
fS 

id 

CN 

03 
ITi 

rs 

CN 

03 
Q 
O 

x 

<N 



X o o ed 

in o in in 

r~- q cn r-^ 

in x -d- r<-> 

— CN 



% £ £ - 8 



« + 

o 



+ + 



s s *3 ti 

DDZ< 



-a 

3 

w 

on 

U 

IB 

00 



u 

cS 

C3 
U 

E 

^-> 

o 

3 
O 



^§ 
3 

_o 

03 
C 

3 
U 

o 

3 
O 
CJ 

4J 

*-» 
C3 
X 

u 

03 

_o 

on 

3 

o 

X 

a 

on 

C 

X 

D. 

3 

03 

^5 
u 

E 

y 

3 
O 
N 
-*-* 

O 



4> 






U 






3 






u 






3 






c 






3 






"" 






e 






#n 




U 


< 




3 
O 






N 


— 

X 


o 


O 


JB 


o 





H 


CN 


0i 



eg 

03 
on 

03 
2 



OO 



fN 



03 X) 

V~> CN 

VO ^ 

vd CN 

cd 03 

0O VO 

00 V} 

rn CN 



X 
03 

03 



X 
<N 

q 

03 



03 



X 



in ix 

CN O 



CN rn 

X C3 

cd CO 

00 X 

CN — 



03 
CN 

o 



CO CO 

oo oo 

00 X 



NO-- 



CO CO CO CO 

00 CN CN CN 

vq oo — q 

CN O CN CN 

X 

X X CO CO 

O CN CN CN 

m m cn oo 

o o — — * 



X CO CO CO 

oo oo oo in 

Tt oo q — 

-- CN rn rn 



j X CO 

i-i o o 

oo m in 

E — CN 

„ X 

X CO 

oo m 



eo co 
m o 

o — 



03 
O 

o 



— cn m CN 

_ X 
X CO 

00 o 



03 
00 
O 



— * cn m m 

CO CO CO CO 

in in o o 

00 t-; -- oo 

CN — rn -- 



CO CO CO CO 

m O CN w> 

CN 00 CN CN 



— f^) 



CO CO 
X — 



03 
00 



rj- CN m CN 

o o o o 



CO X 

o o 



X 

03 
O 



— in in — 
•^ ~ r<S — 



•a 

M 
O 
CJ 

3 

D 



03 
U 



03 
U 

0- 

+ 



C CO 



• + 

< 



189 



CN 






O 






o 






CN 






*— 






H^ 






>. 






-a 






a 












w 






2 












<u 






« 






CO 






d 












■^ 






S 












D, 






1-1 




© 


<C 




ON 


CO 






<U 






| 












-^ 











00 


c 






o 












-*-* 






o 






a 






a 




NO 

r- 


03 






OD 






P3 






C 






O 




on 


*«-» 




NO 


K! 


00 




*- 


_c 




C 


"*-• 




Q 


J 


cn 


c 




no 


o 


5. 




o 


•— 




^ 


eg 




u 


CO 




3 


c« 


m 


M 


>* 


m 


CO 


CO 




"■*J 


Q 




= 






o 




r-~ 


2 




t 


■3 






o 






S 






0> 




_ 


e 

O 




Tl- 


N 






■^j 






O 






o 






S 




"d" 


<*H 




m 


o 






u 






<-> 






c 






u 






3 

eg 




00 


c 






*~ ' 






_ 






<s 


<U 




< 


c 
o 




o> 


N 






•*- 




A 


o 




« 


o 




H 


c* 





JO A a A 
ifl (N (N 00 
\0 00 00 ON 



SN 



Q Q Q grt 
CN </"> 00 (ij 
NO 00 V© 00 



— ^ 03 r* 

© 2£ £ >% 

?) t ^ m 



<N 'O ""> ^ 

;_3 m o NO 



ed « « co 
»n oo cn in 

CN N CN NO 



CO ,5 rt CO 

m ^ m o 
On O on rn 

©--©,-: 



© 



CO CO cO 

£ m S 
rn CN ^J- 



U 



n j * vo 

Tf ON ON "^ 

d d d — I 



u J3 s a 

r- 3; 5t cn 

m © Tj- m 

o — — : — ! 



(N O (N O 
r«1 in m — 

© © © — 



ed 

c 
u 

a 

3 



03 
U 

+ 

a 
3 



03 
U 

a. 



+ + 

15 



CN 






O 






O 






CN 






. — , , 






^H 






>* 






-a 






3 






-«-* 






V) 






2 












"u 






IS 






50 






s 












— > 






s 












a 






u- 






5 




o 


eg 




ON 


CO 






u 






1 












s 




m 


<*H 




00 


o 






c 






o 












•*-» 






y 






c 






a 




VO 


03 






on 






03 






C 




On 

NO 


-4-* 

03 


00 




t- 


_c 




-*^ 






C 


%-» 






J 


<N 


s 

o 


"a 


NO 


CJ 






Oh 


c 




OJ 


03 




3 


CO 


u-i 


xh 


>-> 


in 


.2 


CO 




*-*— » 


Q 




c 






o 




r~ 


03 




Tt 








-a 






u 






£ 






OJ 




^_ 


c 
o 




Tf 


N 






■«— 1 






o 






5 






u. 




■<r 


<+H 




r^ 


o 






u 






u 






c 






<u 






3 




00 


C 






l—l 






<s 






cn 


u 




1 


c 
o 




V 


N 






+-» 




-C. 


o 




w 


o 




H 


0* 





X) 

-C 03 03 03 

00 NO ^ 00 

•* «n irt i^ 

d d d d 

C3 CO C3 C3 

— 00 t^ NO 

iri iti iti in 

d d d d 



ca <5| « a 

m c > on ^m 

<* «n *t v\ 

dodo 

r^ O t~~ O 

W 'O t "0 

o d d o 



03 



42 « * ™ 

5 Tf ^ ^ 

d o ° © 



£ RJ « 

o tS 



03 
O 



^ t t ^ 

dodo 

JO (J o s 
ft (N 2 00 

fi in ^ ** 

d d o d 



— £ ^t Tt 

(N ^ m it 

dodo 



_ J3 

O Xi CO CO 

■* •* O (N 

— < C*N ■* Tj- 

d d d d 



o x x a 

On in no •^t 

— (N CN fn 

d d d d 



-a 
u 

to 
o 
o 

c 

D 



03 



U 

c 

D 



03 



c- 



+ + 



r; 
< 



190 



(N 

O 
O 
fN 



-o 

3 
■*-» 
M 

2 

u 

SO 
3 



U 

n 



O 

c 

.o 
"3 
u 

c 

a 

a 

3 

3 
o 

« 

H 

-*- 

c 

U 

o 
c 
o 
u 

y 

*-» 
cd 
X 

3 

u 



C/5 

M 

ed 

^^ 
o 

D. 

a 
o 
cd 

-5 

<u 

E 

y 

c 

c 

N 
-*^ 

O 

2 

'— 

O 

<u 
y 
c 
u 

3 

(B 

3 



u 

a 

en 

ed 



M 




<N 

i 


i 


< 


c 


M 


y 


X 


s 


Sd 


'5 


H 


E 



cd cz cd 73 

oo © oo m 

o iri r-> Tfr 

© © 



f) 



m 



fl C3 fl fl 

oo oo m oo 

© CN <N © 

rn O ©' i fi 



C3 
O 

ON 



ed ed cd 

MO ^ 

(N m -<t 



(N O O •* 

x 

x _c a 

CN O 00 

— cn m 



cd 

00 

oo 

in O O Tf 



CO 

'_ oo 

E 2 

00 ro 
X 

3 

fN 



X X ed 

in (N oo 

Cj <♦ I s ; 

© © v£> 

X) X) cd 

© m cn 

(N m o 



CN © © VO 



oo in m 
in tj- *© 

rn © © °. 



cd 



X X X cd 

cn in m oo 

O 0C t N 

— © •-! vcJ 



x x x cd 

O 00 fN O 

ov m m rr 

X X X cd 

o o m <n 

© © in r^ 

rsi ~ — in 



X X X cd 

in oo oo o 

in r» vo in 

(N — — r^ 



"3 
U 

ed 
o 
o 

B 

D 



cd 


+ 
6 

3 



cd 
U 



+ + 



rs 

o 
o 



B 

2 
"5 

3 



C3 

E 



o 

3 
O 



CO 

a 

3 

.o 
'-3 

3 
U 
Q 

3 

O 

o 

i 

X 
Cj 



c 

X 

c 

c/3 



x 

a 

3 


cd 

u 

£ 
y 

3 
Q 

N 
■*-» 

Q 

O 



y 


3 
4J 
3 

g 

«N 



M 

H 2 

H E 





o 




oo 




,— ' 




m 




r> 




,— 




*© 




© 




*■ _l 


00 


o 


_e 


v£> 


%-• 




J 








ex 




— 


C*l 

IT) 


« 


~^ 


cd 




CO 




cd 

C 






CN 




t*l 



00 



X X X cd 

o^ooo 

N ■* >0 C> 
O O O (N 



X X X cd 

•<* o m o 

in oo cs oq 

o o — in 

X X X cd 

vo o — v© 

m ro - t 

d — — -^ 



X X X cd 

rN in in o 

oo -^ rs | ■* 

o — < »-< «n 

o x X cd 

■— (N m (N (N 

E ■* «n «n — 

oo d — ^ — in 



X X 

oo oo 

r- '^■ 

o -^ 

x _ 

cd X 

00 (N 

\0 — i 



X cd 

in oo 

■<* r^ 

— ■*' 

x 

cd cd 

O O 

vo c> 



_ X 

X cd 

oo m 

— m 



o 



>n 
O 
n ^ i^ i^ 



y 
oc 



X 

o 



X 

cd 

00 

en ^6 on oo 

^ x 

X cd 

O O 

"d- r-- 

Tt in 



X X 
(N O 
Tf — 



ed ed 

00 (N 

oo m 

oo oo 

X 

cd cd 

■* o 

r- in 



T}- VO On V© 



*!J! 



u 



Cl, a. 

+ + 



ed + 

O . 

E 3 CO t! 

D D 2 < 



191 



3 

•5 

x^ 

"cd 



fN 

O 
O 



-a 

3 
in 

u 

C 



u 

E 



c 
,o 

Q 

C 

a 

a 

c 
o 

is 
c 
<u 
o 

a 
o 

u 



u 

S 

«3 



C 
C 

2 
■3 

£ 

CU 

c 

s 

c 

o 



u 

o 
c 
u 

5 



CN 

i 

ss 
r- 



o 
oo 






NO 



p 






NO 

"3- 






00 



rt d 

o 

o 

d 



<n 



CO 



© © vS © 

o> — on © 

d _' 



CN 

m 



d d d « 

<N fN !£> CN 

O * ^ M 

— « d d ^ ; 



ed 


d 


co 


ed 




oc 


in 


CN 


m 




& 


ON 


oo 


o 




d 


d 


d 


— 




n 


d 


C3 


03 




-3- 





"* 


ON 




<N 


■— < 


—; 


fN 


H 


— 


~~ 


'~ 


— ' 


J— 

1 


JO 

CO 


-O 


JO 


d 


^ 


C^ 


o 


fN 


r-~ 


>, 


— ; 


q 


q 


IN 




~ 


~ 


"~ 


^ 


"d 


co 


co 


d 


CO 


&c 


00 


On 


o 


IT) 


'"5 


— 


fN 


rn 


rn 


B 


"*" 


■"* 


~~* 


~" 


o 


-C 


X 


JO 


d 


e 


no 


00 


oc 


NO 


CJ 


q 


ON 


ON 


fN 


i 




d 


d 


" 


e 


C3 


co 


CO 


CO 


00 


00 


m 


(N 


u 


— 


fN 


— 


m 





u 

a 

d 



CN 



G ~ 



JO .O 

oo « ca xi d 

«/-> 00 cn CN 

— — o m 



00 



"CT 

o 



r- 

ON 



JO -*? 



u 
u 

c 

CO 

s 

c 

'3 
£ 



C 

o 

N 
O 

o 
Be! 



© fN X £ 



_ JO 

x> a jo & 

00 00 00 o 

cn) tj- m vo 



d d d d 
oo © cn cn 
*t no cn m 



d d d d 
© cn cn oo 

vo no r^ no 



CO 

i 

o 

(J O *J 

c c d 

D D Z 



d co S3 



+ 



CM 

O 
O 
fN 



3 
c/j 

2 

00 

c 



d 

£ 



o 

c 
_o 

u 

c 

CO 

c 

_o 

2 

c 
u 

o 

c 
c 
o 



03 



C 

o 

CO 

"3 
u 

£ 

c 

8 

■*— 

o 
o 
c 

Cm 

O 
CJ 

y 

c 
u 

3 

c 

c 



NO 

i 

d 
H 



eg 

d 

d 

G 



u 

c 
c 

N 
■«— » 

o 
o 
a: 



00 



eg d d ea 




J! no ■* io 




rn f*J f*J m 




d o o d 




co d d to 




— o — o 




t rn rn rn rj- 




i o o O o 




i xi X) 




i d .3 •" d 




, in «o m on 




, m rn cn rn 




i d d d d 




i d .5 3 d 




, -<r •£> no on 


■4—* 


i "» "^ "* "* 


B 
u 
c 


i d © d d 




Cm 


1 d ^ d d 


TJ 


• o "* 00 rj- 


_>s 


i ^- rn m ■*? 


— 


' d d d d 


CO 

o 






d d d d 




i vo On m rn 


^^ 


i cn rn it; tj- 


3 


' ^ <z> d d 




M 


' a jo jo ca 


o 

C 


1 cn rt no cn 


• cn m m , ^- 


g 


J d d d d 




La 









e 


1 d d d d 


jj 


' cn On r^ CN 


CJ 


i cn cn cn '•a* 


1 d d d o 


d 


4 


1Z1 


^^ x> X 


1) 
jg 


e>o d d x d 




i On On t-» cn 


>» 


! cn m m tj- 


X 


> ci c> <zi c> 


-a 
_o 




' JO 




• jo jo d d 


1 


i r- oo o cn 


i m m ■*»• '3- 


umn 
Test. 


• d d d d 




. CO CO CO CO 


3 oo 


— cn tj- r>- 


^ t TT rf 


E c2 


', <zi <zi c> <zi 




a -, 


, d d d d 


cu O- 


cn On TT NO 


■£ S 


1 •* "* "cl- Tt 


[ d d <6 <o 


c 3 

Is 




S M 


' 4- 


^ g 


i d d d co 


ry, CQ 


, on o cn tj- 


s i 


, cn cn cn cn 


i d d d d 


1q 




>, >1 


ted 
Peat 
Peat 
Peat 


tAn 
05) b 


d -r- + , 
O . ^ + 


o 


" O *J J ! 


A 


C C d tS 


^ 


3 D Z < 



192 



1 



193 



X 

CL 

I 



CD 
X 

5 



x 
Q 

5 

Q 

< 

w 

GO 

D 
O 

ac 
< 

— 




(s>unoo)Aiisu3ju| 
1 



J 



Dfi 

e 

•a 
-a 

= 



I 

S 

u 



ed 



S 



-=: O 



c 

> 

o 

£ 

en 

Ml 
§ 

C 

u 

c 
'3 

u- 

c* 

T3 



M 

<— 

C 

j= 
Q. 

c 

i 

n 

I 



DJD 



194 




(s}unoQ)A}isuaiu| 



S3 



2 u 

i on 

X« 

— .h 



195 




v. 
y 



. i 



(s}unoo)Aj!su8}U| 
.7 7 Y 



i ... i 



196 




n 






in 




water of 
dies. 










U 3 






■2 © 






& CW 


o 




O T3 


■sr 




d in perc 
d in Fiel 




_. ^ 


c <u 




CT> 


3 1/5 




o 


O 3 




-o 


« *-. 






•= C 






C3 U 


a 


CD 

I— 


materi 
treatm 




rsi 






— >-. 






O «3 






. 1> 






•S ex 






n. 






c3 rS 






u H 






oo "> 


s 




X-ray diffraction 
ally-coated sand 


o 




u. 






B-4. 

natu 



St 



(siunoo)Aijsuaiui 



197 



( z .iuBuj)qa 



g 



oooooooo 
oooooooo 

cosiDin^-cotMi-o 






u 





Q 

1 


>- 


Pu 


|J 


c 


H 


< 


c/d 








§ 



oooooooo 
o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o o 
o o o o o o o 

r>- CD in ^- CO CN i- 



( z .iuBuj)ja 



u 

e 

o 

N 

s 

5 



u 

a 



198 





( Z .UJ 6iu) 


qy 










•4-^ 


c 


o o 


o 














ir 


o m 


o 


o 








"O 


c\ 


(N 1- 


T— 


m 


c 






§ 

w 


































-a 














I N 



















1 <» 




£3 




! i- -Q 












CO 




m cr 

iH 










CO 


c 
o 


o 
o 




















oo 


33 

ra 


_c 














CN 


o 


00 

c 














CN 


a. 

Q. 

n 

u 
(4) 


2 














■<* 


r 

(0 
CO 

>» 


i 

3 

■5 












1 


> r- 

1 o 


n 

o 


g 

a 

CO 

u 

E 














o 


c 


> o o o 


o 


o 


o 


c 


) 




CQ 


c 


o o o 


o 


o 


o 








c 


o o o 


o 


o 


o 








■ki 


c 


o o o 


o 


o 


o 








CM 


N 


co m tj- 
( z -uil 


CO 

)Ul) 


CN 










FigC 



U 

c 

o 
a 



199 



(,.UJ 6uj) qy 



ooooooooo 

OXOMDUI^PXMt-O 




o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 

o 


o 

o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


s 


o 


o 


o 


o 


CO 


CD 


* 


CM 


T— 














(j.UJ 


Bui)jg 



a 
u 

-a 



U 

o 



E 

3 
-*^ 

a 

c 
a 
G 

Si) 

a 

15 
u 

C3 

s 

3 



u 

-a 

8 

c 

I- 

CQ 
■ 

u 

Sf 
il 



200 



g 



c 
E 



( z .iuBiu)qy 



in 

CM 



LO 



CN 



in 

o 




1 

I 



o 

1 

a 

c 
2 



o o o o o 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

m tj- ro cn4 •«- 



(,.iu 6ui)jg 



■■5 
1 

1 

— 

£ 

PQ 

T 

(St 

- 



REFERENCES 

Adams, W. E., and M. Twersky. 1960. Effect of soil fertility on winter killing of coastal 
bermudagrass. Agron. J. 52:325-326. 

Alexander, P. M., and W. B. Gilbert. 1963. Winter damage to bermuda greens. Golf 
Course Rep. 31 (9):50-53. 

Barrios, E. P., and L. G. Jones. 1980. Some influences of potassium nutrition on the 

growth and quality of Tifgreen bermudagrass. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 105:151- 
153. 

Beard, J. B. 1982. Turf management for golf courses. Burgess Publishing, Minneapolis, 
Mn. 

Bell, P. R. (1959). The ability of sphagnum to absorb cations preferentially from dilute 
solutions resembling natural waters. J. Ecol. 47:351 . 

Bethke, C. L. 1988. A guide to the selection of peat for use in turf. Golf Course Manage. 
56(3):100-112. 

Bigelow, C. A., D. Bowman, and K. Cassel. 2000. Sand-based root-zone modification 
with inorganic soil amendments and sphagnum peat moss. USGA Green Sec. 
Rec. 38(4):7-15. 

Bingaman, D. E., and H. Kohnke. 1970. Evaluating sands for athletic turf. Agron. J. 
62:464-467. 

Brady, N. C, and R. R. Weil. 2000. Elements of the nature and properties of soils. 
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 

Brown, K. W. and R. L. Duble. 1975. Physical characteristics of soil mixtures used for 
golf green construction. Agron. J. 67:647-652. 

Brown, E. A., J. B. Sartain, G. H. Snyder, and V. Varshovi. 2000. Phosphorus retention 
in United States Golf Association (USGA) greens. Soil Crop Sci. Soc. Florida 
Proc. 59:112-117. 



201 



202 



Carrow, R.N. 1993. Eight questions to ask: Evaluating soil and turf conditioners. Golf 
Course Manage. 61(10):56-70. 

Cerrato, M. E., and A. M. Blackmer. 1990. Comparison of models for describing corn 
yield response to nitrogen fertilizer. Agron. J. 82:138 - 143. 



Chung K.-Y., J. B. Sartain, and E. W. Hopwood. 1999. Leaching characteristics and 

nutrient supplying potentials of selected P and K fertilizer sources. Soil Crop Sci. 
Soc. Florida Proc. 58:72-76. 

Comer, J. 1999. Impact of soil amendments on moisture retention and reduction of 

nutrients loss from a simulated USGA green profile. M.S. thesis. Univ.of Florida, 
Gainesville, FL. 

Clymo, R. S. (1963). Ion exchange in Sphagnum and its relation to bog ecology. Ann. 
Bot. N.S. 27:309. 

Dahnke, W. C, and R. A. Olson. 1990. Soil test correlation, calibration, and 

recommendation, p. 45-71. InR. L. Westerman (ed.) Soil testing and plant 
analysis, Third Ed. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Inc., Madison, WI. 

Dyal, R. S. 1960. Physical and chemical properties of some peats used as soil 
amendments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 24:268-271. 

Evans, E. M., R. D. Rouse, and R. T. Godauskas. 1964. Low soil potassium sets up 

coastal for a leaf spot disease. Highlts. Auburn, AL. Agric. Exp. Stn. Agric. Res 
11:(2). 

Fry, J. O., and P. H. Dernoeden. 1987. Growth of zoysiagrass from vegetative plugs in 
response to fertilizers. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1 12(2):286-289. 

Gilbert, W. B., and D. L. Davis. 1971. Influence of fertility ratios on winter-hardiness of 
bermudagrass. Agron. J. 63:591-593. 

Guertal, E. 2001. Phosphorus fertilization ofUSGA-type putting greens: Placement, 
Rates, and Leaching. USGA turfgrass and environmental research summary. 

Hanson, B. R. and D. Peters. 2000. Soil type affects accuracy of dielectric moisture 
sensors. California Agriculture. May/June, p 43 - 47. 



203 

Harris, W. G., R. D. Rhue, G. Kidder, R. B. Brown, and R. Littel. 1996. Phosphorus 
retention as related to morphology and taxonomy of sandy coastal plain soil 
materials. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 60:1513-1521. 

Holmen, B. A., and Gschwend, P. M. 1997. Estimating sorption of hydrophobic organic 
compounds in iron oxide- and aluminosilicate clay-coated aquifer sands. Environ. 
Sci. Technol. 31:105-113. 

Horn, G. C. 1970. Modification of sand soils, p 151 - 158. In Proc. 1st Int. Turfgrass Res. 
Conf, Harrogate, England. 15-18 July 1969. Sports Turf Res. Inst., Bingley, 
England. 

Huang, Z. T. and A. M. Petrovic. 1991. Clinoptilolite zeolite amendment of sand 
influence on water use efficiency of creeping bentgrass and nitrate leaching. 
Agron. Abst. 1 77. 

Hummel, Jr., N. W. 1993. Laboratory methods for evaluation of putting green root zone 
mixes. USGA Green Sec. Rec. March/ April, p 23-27. 

Johnson, B. J., R. N. Carrow, and R. E. Burns. 1987. Thatch and quality of Tifway 

bermudagrass turn in relation to fertility and cultivation. Agron. J. 79:524-530. 

Jones, J. R. 1980. Turf analysis. Golf Course Manage. 48(l):29-32. 

Jones, J. B., Jr., B. Wolf, and H. A. Mills. 1991. Plant analysis handbook. Athens, GA. 
Micro-Macro Publishing. 

Juska, F. V. 1959. Response of Meyer zoysia to lime and fertilizer treatments. Agron. J. 
51:81-83. 

Juska, F. V., and J. M. Murray. 1974. Performance of bermudagrass in the transition 
zone as affected by potassium and nitrogen, p 149 - 154. In Proc. 2 nd Int. 
Turfgrass Res. Conf, Blacksburg, VA. 19 - 21 June 1972. 

Kiesling, T. C. 1980. Bermudagrass rhizome initiation and longevity under differing 
potassium nutritional levels. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1 1:629-635. 

Koehler, F. A., F. J. Humenik, D. D. Johnson, J. M. Kreglow, S. A. Dressing, and R. P. 
Maas. 1 982. Best Management Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint Source 
Control. II. Commercial fertilizer, USDA Coop. Agree. 12-05-300-472, EPA 
Interagency Agree, AD-12-F-0-037-0, North Carolina Agric. Ext. Serv., Raleigh, 
NC, p 49 -50. . 



204 

Lowther, J. R. 1980. Use of a single H 2 S0 4 -H 2 2 digest for the analysis of Pinus radiata 
needles. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 11:175-188. 

Lucas, R. E., P. E. Rieke, and R. S. Farnham. 1965. Peats for soil improvement and soil 
mixes. Michigan State Univ. Ext. Bull. 516. 

Li, D., Y. K. Joo, N. E. Christians, and D. D. Minner. 2000. Inorganic soil amendment 
effects on sand-based sports turf media. Crop Sci. 40:1 121-1 125. 



Maas, E. F., and R. M. Adamson. 1972. Resistance of sawdusts, peats, and bark to 

decomposition in the presence of soil and nutrient solution. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. 
Proc. 36:769-772. 

McCarty, L. B. 2001. Best golf course management practices. Prentice Hall. Upper 
Saddle River, New Jersey. 

McCoy, E. L. 1991. Evaluating peats. Golf Course Manage. 59(3):56, 58, 60, 64. 

McCoy, E. L. 1992. Quantitative physical assessment of organic materials used in sports 
turf root zone mixes. Agron. J. 84:375-381. 

McKeague, J. A., J. E. Brydon, and N. M. Miles. 1971 . Differentiation of forms of 
extractable iron and aluminum in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35:33-38. 

Nichols, D. S. and D. H. Boelter. 1982. Treatment of secondary sewage effluent with a 
peat-sand filter bed. J. Environ. Qual. 1 1 :86-92. 

Nus, J. L., P. Haupt, S. E. Brauen, and R. L. Goss. 1987. Influence of sand amendments 
on establishment of 'Penncross' creeping bentgrass. Agron. Abst. p 137. 

Peaslee, D. E., and R. E. Phillips. 1981. In Chemistry in the Soil Environment. Stelly, 
M. (ed). ASA Spec Publ. ASA, SSSA. Madison, WI. p 241-259. 

Petrovic, A. M. 1995. The impact of soil type and precipitation on pesticide and nutrient 
leaching from fairway turf. USGA Green Sec. Rec. 33(1):38-41. 

Petri, A. N., and A. M. Petrovic. 2001 . Cation exchange capacity impacts on shoot 
growth and nutrient recovery in sand based creeping bentgrass greens, p 422 - 
427. In Proc. 9 th Int. Turfgrass Res. Conf. Vol. 9, No. 1, 2001. 

Pritchett, W. L., and G. C. Horn. 1966. Fertilization fights turf disorders. Better Crops 
Plant Food. 50(3):22-25. 



205 

Rannikko, M., and H. Hartikainen. 1981. Retention of applied phosphorus in Sphagnum 
peat. Proc. Int. Peat Congr. 6 th 1981. Duluth, MN. p. 666-669. International 
Peat Society, Helsinki, Finland. 

Rock, C. A., J. L. Brooks, S. A. Bradeen, and R. A. Struchtemeyer. (1984). Use of peat 
for on-site wastewater treatment: I. Laboratory Evaluation. J. Environ. Qual. 
13(4):518 - 523. 

Russell, R. S. 1977. Plant Root Systems: Their Function and Interaction with Soil. 
McGraw-Hill, London. 

Ryan, J. N., and P. M. Gschwend. 1994. Effect of solution chemistry on clay colloid 
release from an iron oxide-coated aquifer sand. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta. 
56:1507. 

Sanchez, C. A. 1990. Soil-testing and fertilization recommendations for crop production 
on organic soils in Florida. Everglades REC, IF AS, University of Florida, Belle 
Glade, FL. Technical bulletin 876. 

Sartain, J. B. 1996. Influence of magnesium sources on extractable soil magnesium 
status and quantity of magnesium leached, p. 178-185. In J. L. Cisar (ed.). 
Turfgrass Research in Florida - A Technical Report. Univ. of Florida, 
Gainesville, FL. 

Sartain, J. B. 1999. Potassium nutrition for bermudagrass. Golf Course Mngt. 67(12):57- 
59. 

Sartain, J. B. 2002. Tifway bermudagrass response to potassium fertilization. Crop Sci. 
42:507-512. 

SAS Institute. 1988. SAS user's guide: Statistics. 6th ed. SAS Inst., Cary NC. 

Shuman, L. M. 2001. Nitrogen and phosphorus loss from greens and fairways: Is there a 
potential problem? USGA Green Sec. Rec. 39(5): 17- 18. 

Sills, M.J. and R. N. Carrow. 1983. Turfgrass growth, N use, and water use under soil 
compaction and N fertilization. Agron. J. 75(3):488-492. 

Smith, A. E., and L. M. Shuman. 1998. Potential movement of nitrate and phosphate 
following application to golf courses. Agronomy abst. p 129. 

Snyder, G. H., E. O. Burt, and G. J. Gascho. 1979. Correcting pH-induced manganese 
deficiency in bermudagrass turf. Agron. J. 71:603-608. 



206 

Cisar, J. L., and G. H. Snyder. 1993. Mobility and persistence of pesticides in a USGA- 
type green I. p 971-977. In R. N. Carrow, N. E. Christians, R. C. Shearman 
(Eds.) Putting green fac. For monitoring pesticides. Int. Turfgrass Soc. Res. J. 
Intertec Pub. Corp. 

Snyder G. H. and J. L. Cisar. 2000. Nitrogen/potassium fertilization ratios for 
bermudagrass turf. Crop Sci . 40 : 1 7 1 9- 1 723 . 

R. S. Stahl and B. R. James. 1991 . Zinc sorption by iron-oxide-coated sand as a function 
of pH. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 55:1287-1290. 

Starrett S. K., and N. E. Christians. 1995. Nitrogen and phosphorus fate when applied to 
turfgrass in golf course fairway condition. USGA Green Sec. Rec. 33(l):23-25. 

Stout, W. L. and R. R. Schnabel. 1997. Water-use efficiency of perennial ryegrass as 

affected by soil drainage and nitrogen fertilization on two floodplain soils. J. Soil 
Water Conserv. 52(3):207-2 1 1 . 

Sturkie, D. G., and R. D. Rouse. 1967. Response ofzoysia and Tiflawn bermuda to P 
and K. Agron. abst. p. 54. 

Sumner, M .E., and Miller. 1996. Unbuffered salt extraction method. J. M. Bigham 
(ed). In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3 Chemical Methods, p 1 2 1 8 - 1 220. 

Taylor, D. H., and G. R. Blake. 1979. Sand content of sand-soil-peat mixtures for 
turfgrass. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 43:394-398. 

Turner, T. R., and N. W. Hummel. 1992. Nutritional requirements and fertilization. In D. 
V. Waddington. et al. (ed). Turfgrass. Agronomy 32:407. ASA, CSSA, and 
SSSA. Madison, WI. 

United States Golf Association. 2000. Bacterial populations and diversity within new 
USGA putting greens. USGA turfgrass and environmental research summary. 

United States Golf Association Green Section Staff. 1993. USGA Recommendation for a 
method of putting green construction: The 1993 revision. USGA Green Sec. Rec. 
31:1-3. 

Waddington. D. V. 1992. Soils, soil mixtures, and soil amendments. InD. V. 

Waddington (ed). Turfgrass. Agronomy 32:331-383. ASA, CSSA, and SSA. 
Madison, WI. 



207 

Waltz, C, and B. McCarty. 2000. Soil amendments affect turf establishment rate. Golf 
Course Mngt. 68(7): 59-63. 

Wood, J. R., and R. L. Duble. 1976. Effects of nitrogen and phosphorus on 

establishment and maintenance of St. Augustinegrass. Texas Agric. Exp. Stn. 
PR-3368C. 

Wong, J. W. C, C. W. Y. Chan, and K. C. Cheung. 1998. Nitrogen and phosphorus 

leaching from fertilizer applied on golf course: Lysimeter study. Water Air Soil 
Pollution. 107:335-345. 

Zimmerman, T. L. 1969. Infiltration rates and fertility levels of physically amended 

Hagerstown soil. M.S. thesis. The Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park, PA. 



BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 
Raymond Heft Snyder was born on 10 July 1973 in Boynton Beach, FL. He 
attended John I. Leonard High School in Lake Worth, FL, and graduated in 1991 . 
Following graduation he spent two years at Palm Beach Community College where he 
graduated with an associate's degree in business administration in the fall of 1993. He 
enrolled at the University of Florida in the spring of 1994 were he began work on his 
bachelor's degree in agriculture operations management. During the next two years, he 
would develop a great interest in turfgrass management and soil science. Following 
graduation in the spring of 1996, he began pursuit of his master's degree in soil and water 
science under the tutelage of Dr. Jerry B. Sartain. Raymond completed his master's 
degree program in December of 1998 and remained at the University of Florida to pursue 
a doctoral degree in soil and water science under the continued tutelage of Dr. Jerry B. 
Sartain. The rest is yet to be told. 



208 



I certify that I have read this study and that in rny opinion it conforms to acceptable 
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation 
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 





Jerft B. 
'rdf essor of Soil and Water Science 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable 
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation 
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



Willie G. Harris 

Professor of Soil and Water Science 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable 
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation 
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




Peter Nkedi-Kizza 

Professor of Soil and Water Science 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable 
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation 
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 





Cisar 
Vofessor of Horticultural Science 



I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable 
standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation 
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 




Max A. Brown 

President, Max A. Brown Enterprises 



This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Agriculture and 
Life Sciences and to the Graduate School and was acceptable as partial fulfillment of the 
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. 



August 2003 



Dean, College of Agriculture, 
and Life Sciences 




Dean, Graduate School